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 .
1. in response to the Office Action dated on 10/22/2025, applicant(s) amend the application as follow:
Claims amended: 2, 10 and 16
Claims previously canceled: 1
Claims newly added: none
Claims pending: 2-21
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant(s) has requested to hold until the claims are allowable. Now the claims are allowable, applicant(s) is/are advised to file TD to remove the Obvious Double Patenting rejection.
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 ww.uspto.gov/patents/appiv/appiying-onine/eterminai-discaimer,
3. Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,853,341 B2. Although the claims at issue
are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications
includes similar limitations such as displaying media assets, searching other media assets using
text string, modifying text string to include interactable element and response to input interacting
with the interactable element and displaying the media assets identifier and other media assets.
The 341 includes other limitation such that identifying a text string in the text comments that
does not match the plurality of the media assets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one
ordinary skill in the art to modify 341 to arrive the same invention as claimed.
4. Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,242,526 A1. Although the claims at issue
are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because displaying media
assets and modifying the comment to include interactable user interface element. The 526 also
include identifying a comments from a user with a user profile that indicates expertise in the
topic of media asset. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to
modify 526 to arrive the same invention as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 2-21 will be allowed when applicant(s) has overcome the Obviousness Double Patenting rejection.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claims 1, 10 and 18, examiner agreed with applicant arguments on pages 9-11 in response filed on 01/26/2026.
Dependent claims 3-9, 11-17 and 19-21 are allowed under the same reason as to claims 2, 10 and 18.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
5. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154