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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2024, 6/13/2025 and 3/4/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 4-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,581. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are broader than the claims in the '581 Patent.
Referring to claims 4-23 of the instant application, see claims 1-20 of the ‘581 Patent, respectively.
Claims 4-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,381. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are broader than the claims in the '581 Patent.
Referring to claims 4-23 of the instant application, see claims 1-20 of the ‘581 Patent, respectively.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 14 recite the limitation "responsive channel information". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The dependent claims are rejected based on their dependency to the independent claims.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 4-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matero (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0174268) in view of Cowperthwaite (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0184578).
Referring to claim 4, receiving, at a server, a plurality of requests associated with navigation of a program guide at a display device, wherein the plurality of requests comprises requests for program guide structure information, and program guide content information, and wherein at least one of the plurality of requests is based at least in part on navigation to a portion of the program guide (see Paragraphs 0045-0046 and 0048).
accessing subscription information associated with an account associated with the display device (see Paragraph 0075).
based at least in part on at least one of the plurality of requests, transmitting, from the server, a plurality of responses to the display device, wherein the plurality of responses comprises program guide structure information and the portion of the program guide, and program guide content information based at least in part on the portion of the program guide (see Paragraphs 0038-0040 (structure), 0045-0046, 0048 and 0072-0075).
Matero fails to teach requesting channel information and transmitting, the channel information based at least in part on the subscription information based on the requested channel information.
Cowperthwaite discloses requesting channel information and transmitting, the channel information based at least in part on the subscription information based on the requested channel information (see Figures 2-4 and Paragraphs 0025-0033).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the program guide request and transmission system, as taught by Matero, using the request and transmission of channel information, as taught by Cowperthwaite, for the purpose of providing a program guide that allows viewing for categorical information such as television show listings that do not require switch back and forth from the program listings page to the detailed information pages of particular selected programs (see Paragraph 0005 of Cowperthwaite).
Referring to claim 5, Matero discloses that the request for program guide structure information is received at a first time (see Paragraphs 0038-0040, 0045-0046 and 0048) and Cowperthwaite discloses that the request for channel information is received at a second time, and the request for guide content information is received at a third time (see requesting to display Figures 3A-3B and Paragraphs 0055-0064 and further note that the user can select multiple programs from the program guide and request additional levels of detail of the program guide information displayed to the user).
Referring to claim 6, Matero discloses that the server comprises a media content delivery server (see Paragraph 0029 and Figure 1).
Referring to claim 7, Matero and Cowperthwaite disclose all of the limitations of claim 4, but fail to teach that the program guide structure information is transmitted prior to both (a) the responsive channel information and (b) the guide content information.
The Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that program guide structure information, also known as a template, can be transmitted prior to the EPG channel, time and program information.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the program guide request and transmission system, as taught by Matero and Cowperthwaite, using the EPG template, as taught by the Examiner statement of Official Notice, for the purpose of preserving bandwidth by not transmitting the entire EPG package of data at one time.
Referring to claim 8, Cowperthwaite discloses that the program guide structure information comprises a date field, time field, channel field, and a content field (see Figure 2 and Paragraph 0022).
Referring to claim 9, Cowperthwaite discloses receiving, at the server, a second plurality of requests comprising a second request for channel information and a second request for guide content information based at least in part on navigation to a second portion of the program guide; and
based at least in part on at least one of the second plurality of requests,
transmitting, from the server, a second plurality of responses to the display device, wherein the second plurality of responses comprises (a) second responsive channel information based at least in part on the subscription information and the second portion of the program guide and (b) second guide content information based at least in part on the second portion of the program guide (see Figures 3A-3B and Paragraphs 0055-0064 and further note that the user can select multiple programs from the program guide and request additional levels of detail of the program guide information displayed to the user).
Referring to claim 10, Matero and Cowperthwaite disclose all of the limitations of claim 4, but fails to teach that the channel information comprises a listing of subscribed channels.
The Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that a program guide can include channel information that comprises a listing of subscribed channels.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the program guide request and transmission system, as taught by Matero and Cowperthwaite, using the EPG template, as taught by the Examiner statement of Official Notice, for the purpose of eliminating channels that the user is not interested in viewing and allowing the user to see only channels that have paid to see.
Referring to claim 11, Cowperthwaite discloses that the channel information comprises a listing of groups of channels (see Figures 3A-3B).
Referring to claim 12, Cowperthwaite discloses that the response comprises program guide structure information that results in a generated display of a program guide grid (see Figures 3A-3B).
Referring to claim 13, Cowperthwaite discloses that the responses comprise (a) the channel information and (b) the program guide content information that results in a generate display of a populated portion of the program guide (see Figures 3A-3B).
Referring to claims 14-23, see the rejection of claims 4-13, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON P SALCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7301. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am-10:00pm M-F (Flex Schedule).
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 571-272-1915. 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.
/Jason Salce/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Jason P Salce
Senior Examiner
Art Unit 2421
March 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights