Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claim 115, 116, 118, 124, 126, 127, 129, 135, 137, 138, 140, and 146 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 115, 116, 119, 124 and 136 of U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the features of the present claims are anticipated by the features of the parent patent claims.
Application 19/028,574
115. A method of using a programmed hardware computer system, the method comprising:
(a) with the computer system automatically storing electronic indicia of an association between a first identifiable online device (OD1) and a set-top box (STB) by matching (i) first personally identifiable information (PII) received by the computer system as a result of a redirection of the OD1 with (ii) stored second personally identifiable information associated with the STB; and
(b) with the computer system automatically causing a cross-device action to be taken as between a second identifiable online device (OD2) and the STB, based on determining an association between the OD2 and the STB, which association is determined using both (i) the stored electronic indicia of the association between the OD1 and the STB, and (ii) detection by the computer system of an association between the OD2 and the OD1 based on use by the OD1 of a common proxy IP address during a predetermined time of day and based on use by the OD2 of the common proxy IP address, wherein the common proxy IP address is an IP address through which network traffic of the OD1 and the OD2 was routed, wherein the computer system is outside a local area network (LAN) defined by the common proxy IP address
U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962
115. A method comprising:
(a) with a programmed hardware computer system automatically storing first electronic indicia of an association between a first online device (OD1) and a set-top box (STB) by matching (i) first personally identifiable information (PII) about a user of the OD1, which first PII is received by the computer system from a third party, with (ii) second personally identifiable information about a user of the STB; and
(b) with the computer system automatically measuring effectiveness of an advertisement displayed via the STB by tracking user behavior performed on a second online device (OD2) following delivery of the advertisement, based on an association between the OD2 and the STB, which association has been determined using both (i) the first electronic indicia of the association between the OD1 and the STB stored pursuant to part (a), and (ii) stored second electronic indicia of an association between the OD2 and the OD1, which have been associated based on use by the OD1 of a common proxy IP address and based on use by the OD2 of the common proxy IP address, wherein the common proxy IP address is an IP address through which network traffic of the OD1 and the OD2 was routed, wherein the association between the OD1 and the OD2 has been determined by a computer system located outside a local area network (LAN) defined by the common proxy IP address.
Claim 126 is anticipated by the features of claim 136 of U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962.
Claim 137 is anticipated by the features of claim 136 of U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962.
Claim 116, 127 and 138 is anticipated by the features of claim 116 of U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962.
Claim 118, 129, and 140 is anticipated by the features of claim 119 of U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962.
Claim 124, 135, and 146 is anticipated by the features of claim 124 of U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962.
Claim 116 is anticipated by the features of claim 116 of U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962.
Claim 116 is anticipated by the features of claim 116 of U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962.
Claim 115-117, 119-121, 123 126-128, 130-132, 134, 137-139, 141-143, and 145, rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 115, 116, 118, 122, 123, 125, and 127 of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,780. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the features of the present claims are anticipated by the features of the parent patent claims.
Claims 115, 126, and 137 are anticipated by the features of claim 115 of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,780.
Claims 116, 127, and 138 are anticipated by the features of claim 116 of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,780.
Claims 117, 128, and 139 are anticipated by the features of claim 118 of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,780.
Claims 119, 130, and 141 are anticipated by the features of claim 122 of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,780.
Claims 120, 131, and 142 are anticipated by the features of claim 123 of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,780.
Claims 121, 132, and 143 are anticipated by the features of claim 125 of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,780.
Claims 123, 134, and 145 are anticipated by the features of claim 127 of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,780.
Claim 115-121, 126-131, 137-143, rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 115, 117, 118, 121-123, and 125 of U.S. Patent No. 11,368,763. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the features of the present claims are anticipated by the features of the parent patent claims.
Claims 115, 126, and 137 are anticipated by the features of claim 115 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 368,763.
Claims 116, 127, and 138 are anticipated by the features of claim 117 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 368,763.
Claims 117, 128, and 139 are anticipated by the features of claim 118 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 368,763.
Claims 118, 129, and 140 are anticipated by the features of claim 121 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 368,763.
Claims 119, 130, and 141 are anticipated by the features of claim 122 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 368,763.
Claims 120, 131, and 142 are anticipated by the features of claim 123 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 368,763.
Claims 121, 132, and 143 are anticipated by the features of claim 125 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 368,763.
Allowable Subject Matter
115-121, 123-124, 126-131, 134-135, 137-143, 145-146 are rejected above with respect to double patenting doctrine but are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Claims 122, 125, 132-133, 136, 144 and 147 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest alone or in combination, all of the features of independent claims 115, 126, and 137.
The cited prior art references disclose generally profile and preference sharing between user devices and associating a device with a location based on connection to a specific access network. However, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest, alone or in combination, all of the features of independent claims 115, 126, and 136.
The closest prior art references disclose:
Rowe et al. (US 2012/0084828) discloses [0055] embodiments associating TV viewing data and web usage data on a per household/per user basis. In some embodiments by recognizing that, at any given time, most or all Internet-enabled devices in a household will access the Internet through a common router and, as a result, share a common IP address. As already described, the IP address can be static or dynamic. In the case where the IP address is dynamic and changes over time (e.g., when the IP address is assigned dynamically by an ISP using DHCP) the IP address for the household can be logged at a web server (such as the Google TV set top box 400, the log server 300, or the TV provider 102). In this way, historical TV viewing data and web usage can still be associated with a particular household/user over the corresponding period of time.
Taguchi et al. (US 2002/0144281) discloses techniques for accessing multimedia information. In specific embodiments, the identifiers comprise user definable identifiers that are stored in a first personal information store. The program code further causes the computer to forward, from a first location, a copy of the first personal information store to a server. A copy of the first personal information store is created at the server, and the copy of the first personal information store is accessed in order to retrieve the one or more of user definable identifiers for a media source of media streams to be played from a second location at a later time.
Parker et al. (US 2010/0333131) discloses a secure content sharing method for sharing content between a plurality of receiving devices. A content sharing access service may provide other information to the receiving devices in the secure content group to facilitate formation of a secure content sharing group, such as identifiers that may be used to determine a location of where shared content resides (e.g., a network address of a sharing device, etc.) as well as other information that may be used to identify receiving devices that are in the secure content sharing group, etc. Such other information may be provided to the receiving devices in various ways, such as via the satellite network, the other communication network, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO ALCON whose telephone number is (571)270-5668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-7:00pm.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
FERNANDO . ALCON
Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/FERNANDO ALCON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights