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
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 04/07/2025. Claims 2-25 are presently pending. Claim 1 has been canceled by the Applicant. Claims 2-25 are newly presented.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of the following patents in the chain of continuity:
Claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,382
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,470,398
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,848,833
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,390,098
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, with respect to the method claim 2 of instant application and the method claim 1 of USPN 11,470,398 as illustrated bellow:
Instant Application
USPN 11,470,398
2 (New) A method comprising:
receiving a selection via a user interface for a live program;
identifying, based at least in part on the received selection, an on-demand version of the live program from an on-demand source,
wherein the on-demand source provides a start over function for the live program; and
providing for output the on-demand version
1 A method comprising:
accessing, by a device, a video from a linear service at a first position corresponding to a first time after a scheduled start time of the video at the linear service;
determining, based on a user profile, a non-linear service that provides the video for streaming over a network link; without receiving a user command to access the non-linear service, locally caching, at the device, a portion of the video from the non-linear service; receiving a user command to play back the video from a second position corresponding to a time prior to the first time;
in response to receiving the user command to play back the video from the second position, generating the portion of the video that is locally cached at the device for display from the second position.
As can be seen above, the instant claim is substantially broader than the patented claim, therefore, obvious over patented claim 1.
Similar analysis applies to the independent system claims. Similar analysis applies to the dependent claims.
Similar analysis applies to the USPN 10,848,833 and 10,390,098.
Furthermore, the combination of instant claims 2 and 7 is broader than claim 1 of USPN 12,238,382. It is noted than claim 1 of the USPN 12,238,382 is directed to selection of a higher definition version, versus instant claim 1 cites a “higher quality” which imparts similar features.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-6, 8-9, 12-18, 20-21, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hannum et al., USPGPUB 2014/0229999 (hereinafter “Hannum”).
Regarding claim 2, Hannum discloses a method (Fig. 8) comprising:
receiving a selection via a user interface for a live program (Figs. 2-5);
identifying, based at least in part on the received selection, an on-demand version of the live program from an on-demand source (Figs. 6-7 and corresponding descriptions), wherein the on-demand source provides a start over function for the live program (e.g. Fig. 4, 38); and
providing for output the on-demand version (Fig. 8, S104-S107). See ¶¶ [27]-[50] for detailed explanation.
Regarding claim 3, Hannum discloses wherein the receiving the selection via the user interface for the live program occurs during display of the live program from a live streaming source (Fig. 4, 38; ¶ [38]).
Regarding claim 4, Hannum discloses wherein a common source comprises the on- demand source, and a live streaming source for the live program (¶¶ [27]-[32]).
Regarding claim 5, Hannum discloses before the identifying, determining that the on-demand source provides the start over function for the live program (Fig. 8, S101-S103), wherein the identifying is based at least in part on the determining (¶¶ [46]-[50]).
Regarding claim 6, Hannum discloses:
prebuffering the on-demand version (Fig. 8, S103);
automatically accessing an on-demand service (S105), and
generating for output the prebuffered on-demand version, whereby no buffer or download time will be experienced when the start over function is selected (S105-S107; ¶¶ [46]-[50]).
Regarding claim 8, Hannum discloses wherein the identifying comprises querying a database of on-demand sources to determine availability of the on-demand version (Figs. 6-7; ¶¶ [30], [44]-[45]).
Regarding claim 9, Hannum discloses wherein the database is updated periodically to reflect a current availability of on-demand versions of live programs (¶ [45]).
Regarding claim 12, Hannum discloses wherein the on-demand version comprises additional features not available for the live program (¶ [47], features such as rewind/ fast-forward/ pause/ etc.).
Regarding claim 13, Hannum discloses wherein the on-demand version is provided in a format compatible with a user device (As shown in Fig. 1, the video whether broadcast or on-demand is offered through network 15 and distributed to be received by the user devices 13, ¶¶ [27]-[31]).
The system of claims 14-18, 20-21, and 24-25 recite similar features as the method of claims 2-6, 8-9, and 12-13, respectively, effectuated by the same, therefore, are rejected by the same analysis.
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 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannum, in view of Radloff et al., USPGPUB 2008/0141317 (hereinafter “Radloff”).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Hannum is silent on wherein the on-demand version has a higher quality than the live program from a live streaming source for the live program.
However, Radloff discloses a method and system for media source selection and toggling (Abstract) wherein the on-demand version has a higher quality than the live program from a live streaming source for the live program (Figs. 4 (404), 5 (508), 6, 7, 9, 10, and corresponding descriptions);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Hannum with Radloff’ s teachings in order to provide the user/ viewer with the best suitable option.
Claims 10-11 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannum, in view of Talvensaari et al., USPGPUB 2015/0227294 (hereinafter “Talvensaari”).
Regarding claims 10 and 22, Hannum is silent on wherein the providing for output comprises launching an application corresponding to the on-demand source.
However, Talvensaari discloses a method and system for providing a user interface for accessing content from different sources, on-demand and/ or broadcast streaming (Abstract) wherein the providing for output comprises launching an application corresponding to the on-demand source (Figs. 1, 3, 5 and corresponding descriptions; ¶ [34]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Hannum with Talvensaari’ s teachings in order to provide the user/ viewer with software application for performing tasks suited to their convenience (See ¶¶ [15], [29] of Talvensaari for motivation).
Regarding claims 11 and 23, the system of Hannum and Talvensaari discloses wherein the application is launched without interrupting output of the live program (Talvensaari: ¶ [34]).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R MARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-7 ET flex.
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 J Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/JAMES R MARANDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights