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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1–20 have been submitted for examination.
Claims 1–20 have been examined and rejected.
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 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,222.
US 19/002,399 Claim 1
US 12,219,222 Claim 7
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
storing, at a computing device,
a plurality of advertisements associated with first content;
receiving an indication of an event associated with output of the first content; and
causing, based on the event, at least one advertisement of the plurality of advertisements to be removed from local storage and replaced in the local storage with at least one other advertisement.
causing, by a computing device, output of alert content, wherein the alert content disrupts output of first content or is output with the first content;
The method of claim 1, further comprising: based on an issue associated with output of the first content, and
determining, based on one or more words associated with the alert content, at least one advertisement for output with or following the alert content, wherein the one or more words are associated with the at least one advertisement; and
based on an association between alert metadata for alert content and advertisement metadata for a second advertisement of the plurality of advertisements,
causing the at least one advertisement to be output with or following the alert content.
cause output of the alert content and the second advertisement, wherein the advertisement metadata for the second advertisement is associated with content metadata for the first content.
Claims 1, 8, and 15, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,222. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1, 8, and 15, are anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 7 as shown in the table above. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1)
Regarding claims 2–7, 8–14, and 16–20, they contain similar limitations as found in claims 2–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,222 and are rejected for similar reasons as independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 1–27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,601,730.
US 19/002,399 Claim 1
US 11,601,730 Claim 5
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
storing, at a computing device,
a plurality of advertisements and advertisement metadata for each advertisement of the plurality of advertisements;
receiving content metadata for content; and
based on an issue associated with the content,
causing output of a first advertisement of the plurality of advertisements,
based on the advertisement metadata for the first advertisement being associated with the content metadata.
causing, by a computing device, output of alert content, wherein the alert content disrupts output of first content or is output with the first content;
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving alert metadata for alert content; and
determining, based on one or more words associated with the alert content, at least one advertisement for output with or following the alert content, wherein the one or more words are associated with the at least one advertisement; and
based on an association between the alert metadata and the advertisement metadata for at least one of: a second advertisement of the plurality of advertisements or the first advertisement,
causing the at least one advertisement to be output with or following the alert content.
causing output of the alert content in conjunction with at least one of: the second advertisement or the first advertisement.
Claims 1, 8, and 15, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,601,730. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1, 8, and 15, are anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 5 as shown in the table above. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1)
Regarding claims 2–7, 8–14, and 16–20, they contain similar limitations as found in claims 2–20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,601,730 and are rejected for similar reasons as independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,225,623.
US 19/002,399 Claim 1
US 10,225,623 Claim 16
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
receiving, via a network, content;
causing output of the content;
receiving, via the network, alert content comprising metadata associated with demographic information;
causing, by a computing device, output of alert content, wherein the alert content disrupts output of first content or is output with the first content;
in response to receiving the alert content, causing interruption of the output of the content to cause output of the alert content;
determining, based on one or more words associated with the alert content, at least one advertisement for output with or following the alert content, wherein the one or more words are associated with the at least one advertisement; and
determining, based on the demographic information, an advertisement of a plurality of locally stored advertisements, wherein at least one of the plurality of locally stored advertisements comprises one or more tags associated with the demographic information; and
causing the at least one advertisement to be output with or following the alert content.
causing output of the determined advertisement in conjunction with the alert content.
Claims 1, 8, and 15, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,225,623. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1, 8, and 15, are anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 16 as shown in the table above. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1)
Regarding claims 2–7, 8–14, and 16–20, they contain similar limitations as found in claims 17–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,225,623 and are rejected for similar reasons as independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–33 of U.S. Patent No. 10,917,701.
US 19/002,399 Claim 1
US 10,917,701 Claim 9
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
storing, locally at a computing device,
a plurality of advertisements and one or more advertisement information tags associated with each advertisement of the plurality of advertisements;
receiving a first portion of content and one or more content information tags associated with the content;
causing, by a computing device, output of alert content, wherein the alert content disrupts output of first content or is output with the first content;
causing output of the first portion of the content; determining an issue associated with receiving a second portion of the content;
determining, based on one or more words associated with the alert content, at least one advertisement for output with or following the alert content, wherein the one or more words are associated with the at least one advertisement; and
determining an association between: at least one advertisement information tag, of the one or more advertisement information tags, associated with an advertisement of the plurality of advertisements, and the one or more content information tags; and
causing output of the advertisement.
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving alert content comprising one or more alert information tags; and causing output of the alert content.
The method of claim 8, further comprising: determining an association between: at least one advertisement information tag, of the one or more advertisement information tags, associated with a second advertisement of the plurality of advertisements, and the one or more alert information tags; and
causing the at least one advertisement to be output with or following the alert content.
causing output of the second advertisement in conjunction with the alert content.
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,917,701. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 are anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 9 as shown in the table above. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1)
Regarding claims 2–7, 8–14, and 16–20 they contain similar limitations as found in claims 2–33 of U.S. Patent No. 10,917,701 and are rejected for similar reasons as independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1–2, 4, 6–9, 11, 13–16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilar et al. (US 2012/0110616) in view of Daly et al. (US 2015/0019619).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15 Kilar discloses:
An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, (Kilar, Fig. 2, ¶ [0075]) cause the apparatus to:
determine at least one advertisement for output, wherein the one or more words are associated with the at least one advertisement; and (Kilar teaches that advertisements may be related to the content, ¶¶ [0168–9], “pre-roll advertisement 420 is streamed and played before the streaming and playback of the media program 320 begins. However, more than one pre-roll advertisement may also be streamed and played back before streaming and playing back of the media program 320 beings. Pre-roll advertisements 420 are typically 5-10 second duration advertisements from a sponsor of the media program 320, and may display an icon or trademark representing the sponsor along with a short "this program brought to you by" audio narrative.”)
cause the at least one advertisement to be output (Kilar, ¶ [0291], “the first set of candidate advertisements could all be downloaded in the user device 102 in advance of the advertising break 422(1), and replayed locally when appropriate”, ¶ [0178], “That data is used to update the database 315 used by the ad service 316 to determine candidate advertisements to present to the user 132 for future selection by the user 132 or to simply select advertisement for showing to the user.”, ¶ [0211], “if the advertisement segments referred to by elements 346A-346B refer to an advertisement that is interrupted and replaced with another advertisement, the computation of the updated segment playlist 338 requires only a recomputation of items 346A-346C.”)
Kilar does not explicitly teach “cause output of alert content, wherein the alert content disrupts output of first content or is output with the first content; determine, based on one or more words associated with the alert content, at least one advertisement for output with or following the alert content, cause the at least one advertisement to be output with or following the alert content.”
In a similar field of endeavor Daly teaches:
cause output of alert content, (Daly, ¶ [0021], “it is determined that a subscriber will be notified. The determination may be based on severe or urgent emergency situations (e.g., adverse weather or missing child broadcast)”) wherein the alert content disrupts output of first content or is output with the first content; (Daly teaches that severe alerts interrupt multimedia content, ¶ [0020], “The created notification profile may have a plurality of notification instructions for different scenarios. The created profile may provide alert confidence levels for each network resource for a particular time period, location, situation (e.g., weather), severity level, or the like. In an embodiment, an alert may be sent to network resources that cross a designated threshold alert confidence level.”),
determine, based on one or more words associated with the alert content, at least one advertisement for output with or following the alert content, (Daly, ¶ [0027], “Example contexts of an alert message, as discussed herein, may be [ . . . ] a product purchase suggestion (e.g., advertisement) in an alert message”)
cause the at least one advertisement to be output with or following the alert content. (Daly, ¶ [0021], “it is determined that a subscriber will be notified. The determination may be based on [. . .] less severe situations such as [ . . . ] an advertisement.”, ¶ [0027], “Example contexts of an alert message, as discussed herein, may be [ . . . ] a product purchase suggestion (e.g., advertisement) in an alert message”)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the system for playing content as taught by Kilar with the system for with the explicit teaching of outputting both an alert and an advertisement as taught by Daly, the motivation is to alert a user of a danger, after all, “an alert message, as discussed herein, may be an alternate route received in an alert message, a warning to stay away from a location for a time period received in an alert message, a product purchase suggestion (e.g., advertisement) in an alert message, an instruction to call a phone number in an alert message, or the like.” as taught by Daly (¶ [0027]).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16 the combination of Kilar and Daly teaches:
The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the alert content comprises at least one of: an Amber Alert; an emergency message; a message from an emergency information service; a weather notification; a political address; or a political message. (Daly, ¶ [0021], “The determination may be based on severe or urgent emergency situations (e.g., adverse weather or missing child broadcast) or less severe situations such as a planned network maintenance outage, traffic alert, or an advertisement.”)
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18 the combination of Kilar and Daly teaches:
The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the processor-executable instructions that cause the apparatus to cause the at least one advertisement to be output with or following the alert content further cause the apparatus to: cause output of the at least one advertisement as an overlay over the alert content; or cause output of the alert content as an overlay over the at least one advertisement. (Daly, ¶ [0021], “it is determined that a subscriber will be notified. The determination may be based on [. . .] less severe situations such as [ . . . ] an advertisement.”, ¶ [0027], “Example contexts of an alert message, as discussed herein, may be [ . . . ] a product purchase suggestion (e.g., advertisement) in an alert message”)
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20 the combination of Kilar and Daly teaches:
The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the processor-executable instructions that cause the apparatus to determine the at least one advertisement for output with or following the alert content further cause the apparatus to determine, based on advertisement metadata associated with a plurality of advertisements, and based on the one or more words associated with the alert content, the at least one advertisement, wherein the plurality of advertisements comprises the at least one advertisement, and wherein the advertisement metadata is associated with the one or words. (Daly, ¶ [0021], “it is determined that a subscriber will be notified. The determination may be based on [. . .] less severe situations such as [ . . . ] an advertisement.”, ¶ [0027], “Example contexts of an alert message, as discussed herein, may be [ . . . ] a product purchase suggestion (e.g., advertisement) in an alert message”)
Regarding claims 7, and 14, the combination of Kilar and Daly teaches:
The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the at least one advertisement is contextually related to the alert content, contextually different from the alert content, or contextually opposite from the alert content. (Daly, ¶ [0021], “it is determined that a subscriber will be notified. The determination may be based on [. . .] less severe situations such as [ . . . ] an advertisement.”, ¶ [0027], “Example contexts of an alert message, as discussed herein, may be [ . . . ] a product purchase suggestion (e.g., advertisement) in an alert message”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B PIERORAZIO whose telephone number is (571)270-3679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8am - 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 5712704195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL B. PIERORAZIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426