DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims are allowable because the prior art does not teach identifying a time when a display item is to be interrupted by a supplemental content item, then determining before that time a likelihood of receiving a command to skip play of the supplemental content based at least in part on detecting a body part of a user proximate to a position on the device at which an interface element indicating an option to skip the supplemental content is to be displayed (i.e. has not been displayed yet) with the supplemental content item, and then based on the determined skipping likelihood, transmitting at the identified time either a different supplemental content or a modified version of the supplemental content. To paraphrase, the method requires that the user hover (not touch) near the location on the display where a skip control is not yet displayed (but will be), then—without the user selecting skip—transmit a different supplemental content than originally planned.
These limitations, taken together with the rest of the recited, render the claims allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Double Patenting
Claim 1, 2, 5-12, and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,206,941 in view of Hardee et al., US 2022/0174336.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim would have been obvious over the reference claims. Both sets of claims are directed to a method of detecting skipping likelihood for supplemental content, and one of ordinary skill would see the claims in question as obvious variants of each other.
Claims 1 and 11. All the limitations are taught in the parent claim with the exception of detecting a body part of a user proximate to the position of the user device. This limitation is taught in Hardee at [para. 26]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references and the parent claim, predicting user intent via the hovering of a finger in the same way as cursor position is used in the parent claim. Users will intuitively move their hand towards a location where they expect a control to appear and this indicates user intent without actually prompting the user [see Hardee, paras. 17, 19].
Claims 2 and 12. Hardee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the body part is a hand [para. 26].
Limitations of other claims map to the parent claims of U.S. 12,206,941 as follows:
Current Claim Parent
5, 15 1
6, 16 4 7, 17 7
8, 18 8
9, 19 5
10, 20 6
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,206,941 in view of Hardee as cited above and Iyer, US 2019/0050486.
3 and 13. The parent claim is silent on detecting a pointing gesture. Iyer teaches a method of determining user attention, wherein the detecting the body part of the user of the user device proximate to the position of the user device further comprises detecting a gesture of a hand of the user of the user device pointing to a relevant position of the user device.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Iyer, since pointing is intuitive (requiring no user instruction) and is a distinct gesture that indicates attention in a limited area.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,930,247.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim would have been anticipated by the reference claims. Both sets of claims are directed to a method of detecting skipping likelihood for supplemental content, and one of ordinary skill would see the claims in question as obvious variants of each other.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2424