DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Note: Preliminary amendment filed 12/23/2024 has been received and considered.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 have been amended and claims 3, 9 and 15 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "…the one or more subsets of the scheduled media presentation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The one or more subsets of the scheduled media presentation was deleted in claim 1.
Double Patenting
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 nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,838,573.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,194.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IONESCU (US 2015/0128162) in view of Fiderer (US 2021/0227278).
Regarding claim 1, IONESCU discloses a method in a multichannel media distribution computing system, the method comprising:
generating, by the one or more processors, first analytical information regarding multiple scheduled media presentations of multiple media assets (an analytic module aggregates events and metrics to create analytics reports and user interfaces UIs; see at least Fig. 7 and paragraphs 0026, 0045, 0052 and 0140);
causing, by the one or more processors, display of at least some of the generated first analytical information on a user client device communicatively coupled to the multichannel media distribution computing system (the analytics module creates user interfaces, i.e. dashboard; see at least Fig. 7 and paragraphs 0052, 0138 and 0140); and
providing at least some of the multiple media assets to each of at least some media receivers of a plurality of distinct media receivers (delivering content and ads to the user; see at least paragraphs 0031-0032), and
wherein generating the first analytical information includes generating analytical information regarding providing the at least some media assets (an analytic module aggregates events and metrics to create analytics reports and user interfaces UIs; see at least Fig. 7 and paragraphs 0026, 0045, 0052 and 0140).
IONESCU is not clear about providing assets to media receivers prior to the schedule presentation of the assets and generating analytical information regarding a transmission time associated with providing assets.
Fiderer discloses the above missing limitations; potential assets maybe delivered and stored in receivers boxes and the receivers may insert the assets; see at last paragraphs 0007 and 0015 and reporting information may include delivery timing information such as dates and times of delivery; see at least paragraphs 0056-0057.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify IONESCU by the teachings of Fiderer by having the above limitations so to be able to control and monitor the distribution of targeted assets; see at least the Abstract.
Regarding claim 2, IONESCU in view of Fiderer disclose the method of claim 1, wherein generating the first analytical information includes generating multiple distinct success rates for each of the one or more subsets of the scheduled media presentations (IONESCU; the real-time reports enable users to identify success metrics; see at last paragraphs 0026 and 0140).
Regarding claim 4, IONESCU in view of Fiderer disclose the method of claim 1, wherein generating the first analytical information includes generating information based on one or more geographical locations that include a subset of the disparate locations and wherein the remote data server aggregates and packages the status reports from the plurality of distinct media receivers in multiple disparate locations (IONESCU; the analytics module aggregated events and metrics to create analytics reports and user interfaces Uls; see at least paragraph 0052 and Fig. 7. Furthermore, the real-time reports enable users to identify success metrics; see at least paragraphs 0026 and 0140).
Regarding claim 5, IONESCU in view of Fiderer disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising assigning one or more characteristic tags to at least some distinct media receivers of the plurality of distinct media receivers based at least in part on the generated first analytical information (the interface shown in Fig. 7 indicates the client device type and can display information regarding viewing devices; see at least paragraphs 0139 and 0150).
Regarding claim 6, IONESCU in view of Fiderer disclose the method of claim 1, wherein causing the display of at least some of the generated first analytical information on the user client device includes generating one or more interactive reporting facilities to display one or more aspects of the generated first analytical information based at least in part on a user interaction with the one or more interactive reporting facilities (Display in Fig. 7 is shown with icons, dashboard, controls, command regions, windows, toolbars, menus and buttons that are used to initiate action, invoke routines, search for assets, display metrics and event data or invoke other functionality’ see at least Fig. 7 and paragraph 0138-0139).
Claim 7 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 ET.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/YASSIN ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426