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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary amendment filed on 06/23/2025 is acknowledged. Pending claims are 2-21.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,778,271. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are broader and inclusive to the patented claims.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,211. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are broader and inclusive to the patented claims
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vaughn et al. (hereinafter ‘Vaughn’, Pub. No. 2021/0073264).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Vaughn teaches a system (100, Fig. 1) (with corresponding method) comprising:
memory storing instructions; control circuitry configured (These elements are inherent in computing devices as seen on fig. 6) to execute the instructions to:
receive one or more user commands indicative of a user's characteristic reaction to one or more segments of content having an associated level of impropriety ([0018]; [0019];[0028]-[0030]);
based on the received commands, generate user sensibility data associating one or more restrictive actions for segments of content having an associated level of impropriety ([0016]-[0018]; [0028]-[0030], where after monitoring user’s reactions, interactions, on viewing sessions, social network reactions to media, etc.; the system generates user profiles with limits and tolerances for different topics and media, and the respective restrictive action);
determine a first level of impropriety for a first segment of content (every content is analyzed per segments, classified and scored for their impropriety/adequacy, [0031]-[0035]);
determine whether the user sensibility data includes one or more restrictive actions associated with the first level of impropriety of the first segment of content ([0016]-[0018]; [0028]-[0030]);
in response to determining that the user sensibility data does include one or more restrictive actions associated with the first level of impropriety of the first segment of content, perform the one or more restrictive actions on the first segment of content (the system dynamically evaluates if a segment of the content is appropriate for the user based on both segment scores and users’ tolerances, and modifies it accordingly. A given segment is accessed if there is no corresponding restriction after evaluation, [0011]; [0022]; [0034]);
determine a second level of impropriety for a second segment of content (every content is analyzed per segments, classified and scored for their impropriety/adequacy, [0031]-[0035]);
determine whether the user sensibility data includes one or more restrictive actions associated with the second level of impropriety of the second segment of content ([0016]-[0018]; [0028]-[0030]); and
in response to determining that the user sensibility data does not include one or more restrictive actions associated with the second level of impropriety of the second segment of content, generate the second segment of content for display without restricting viewing of the second segment of content (the system dynamically evaluates if a segment of the content is appropriate for the user based on both segment scores and users’ tolerances, and modifies it accordingly. A given segment is not accessed if there is corresponding restriction after evaluation, [0011]; [0022]; [0034]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Vaughn teaches further comprising generating for display samples of content from each of a plurality of levels of impropriety to trigger the receiving of one or more user commands indicative of a user's characteristic reaction to one or more of the levels of impropriety of content ([0023]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Vaughn teaches further comprising:
receiving a user command selecting a content item for display; generating the content item for display; and updating the user sensibility data based on commands received in response to generating the content item for display ([0016]-[0021]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Vaughn teaches wherein each segment of content has an associated level of impropriety in relation to each of a plurality of aspects of impropriety (Fig. 5; [0033]; [0034]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Vaughn teaches further comprising classifying a level of impropriety of an upcoming segment of a content item whilst generating for display a current segment of the same content item ([0016]; where the filtering could be live).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Vaughn teaches further comprising generating for display an invitation to the user to override the one or more restrictive actions associated with determined level of impropriety of the first segment of content (warning message, [0015]; [0018]; [0021]; [0023]).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Vaughn teaches further comprising generating for display an invitation to the user to accept the one or more restrictive actions associated with determined level of impropriety of the first segment of content (warning message, [0015]; [0021]; [0023]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Vaughn teaches wherein the first segment of content comprises audio content, and the one or more restrictive actions comprise muting the audio content, and masking the audio content with a sound ([0015]; [0016]; [0018]; [0020]).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Vaughn teaches wherein the one or more restrictive actions comprise any one of: fast forward the first segment, blur the first segment, skip the first segment, and play an advertisement in place of the first segment ([0015]; [0016]; [0018]; [0020]).
Regarding claims 11 and 21, Vaughn teaches further comprising generating for display a notification notifying the user of imminent display of the first segment, and the first level of impropriety of the first segment (warning message, [0015]; [0018]; [0021]; [0023]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR S PARRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Mostly 10-6PM.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-2721915. 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.
/OMAR S PARRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421