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 statement (IDS) submitted on 6/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has 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 § 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 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,218,775. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are broader than the claims in the ‘775 Patent.
Referring to claims 1-7 of the instant application, see claims 1-10 of the ‘775 Patent.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,256,130. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are broader than the claims in the ‘130 Patent.
Referring to claims 1-7 of the instant application, see claims 1-8 of the ‘130 Patent.
Referring to claims 8-14 of the instant application, see claims 17-24 of the ‘130 Patent.
Referring to claims 15-21 of the instant application, see claims 9-16 of the ‘130 Patent.
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 1, 7-8, 14-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0260473) in view of Bhogal et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0134252).
Referring to claim 1, Newell discloses determining, by one or more computing devices and based an indicator in a first video content item, a predicted end time of the first video content item (see Paragraph 0040 and Paragraph 0042 for the media transit facility 104 receiving a UPF from local programming providers 102, which insert the UPF into the video content items).
Newell also discloses determining that the predicted end time of the first video content item is later than a scheduled end time of the first video content item (see Paragraphs 0058-0059 for a sporting event running late and determining the extended end time, which is later than the original end time of the sporting event).
Newell also discloses modifying, based on the predicted end time of the first video content item and prior to the scheduled end time of the first video content item, an indication of when a first video content item will end (see Paragraphs 0058-0059 for modifying the end time to the later end time of the sporting event).
Newell only considers extending the recording of the first content item based on the sporting event going into overtime, however, Newell does not consider adjusting the recording of a second video content item that occurs after the first content item and therefore, fails to teach modifying an indication of when a second video content item will be provided, wherein the second video content item is scheduled after the first video content item.
Bhogal discloses that when a first program goes into overtime and prevents a second show from being recorded, modifying an indication of when a second video content will be provided, wherein the second video content item is scheduled after the first video content item (see Paragraph 0038).
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 end time modification process, as taught by Newell, using the second program recording adjustment functionality, as taught by Bhogal, for the purpose of ensuring that a second show that has been selected for viewing and/or recording can be recorded and/or viewed in the second show’s entirety.
Referring to claim 7, Bhogal discloses changing, based on the predicted end time of the first video content item and prior to the scheduled end time of the first video content item, a video stream from which a second video content item is recorded (see Paragraph 0038).
Referring to claim 8, see the rejection of claim 1 and further note that Newell teaches that the method is executed at server/media transmit facility 104.
Referring to claim 14, see the rejection of claim 7.
Referring to claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1.
Referring to claim 21, see the rejection of claim 8.
Claims 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0260473) in view of Bhogal et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0134252) in further view of Diamondstein (U.S. Patent No. 9,571,890).
Referring to claim 2, Newell and Bhogal disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach that the indicator comprises a visual indicator.
Diamondstein discloses a time-based sporting event that includes a graphic overlay that presents users with a representation of how much time has elapsed and/or remains in a particular portion of the game, which can be used to determine a game time using an image analysis technique (see Column 16, Line 18 through Column 17, Line 10), therefore using a visual indicator to determine an end time of a sports program.
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 indicator, as taught by Newell and Bhogal, using the visual indicators, as taught by Diamondstein, for the purpose of more accurately determining when the end of a sports program has ended.
Claim 3 corresponds to claim 2, wherein Diamondstein further discloses that the visual indicator comprises a video overlay displayed with the first video content item (see Column 16, Lines 49-51).
Referring to claims 9-10, see the rejection of claims 2-3, respectively.
Referring to claims 16-17, see the rejection of claims 2-3, respectively.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0260473) in view of Bhogal et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0134252) in further view of Harvey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0244010).
Referring to claim 4, Newell and Bhogal disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, wherein Newell discloses determining the predicted end time of the first video content item (see the rejection of claim 1) comprises but fail to teach determining, based on determining remaining distance in a race, the predicted end time.
Harvey discloses determining, based on determining remaining distance in a race, the predicted end time (see Paragraph 0075).
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 end time determination process, as taught by Newell and Bhogal, using the race distance end time determination functionality, as taught by Harvey, for the purpose of allowing spectators to receive real-time information about a racer (see Paragraph 0018 of Harvey).
Referring to claims 11 and 18, see the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0260473) in view of Bhogal et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0134252) in further view of Radloff (U.S. Patent Application No. 8,989,561).
Referring to claim 5, Newell and Bhogal disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach determining, based on the indicator, a status of the first video content item and modifying, based on the status of the first video content item and by adding a status indicator, a first entry in a content listing.
Radloff discloses determining, based on the indicator, a status of the first video content item and modifying, based on the status of the first video content item and by adding a status indicator, a first entry in a content listing (see Column 7, Lines 4-19, Figure 8 and Column 11, Lines 38-59).
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 end time determination and modification system, as taught by Newell and Bhogal, using status determination and status indicator functionality, as taught by Radloff, for the purpose of providing a system that is capable of rescheduling recordings to avoid conflicts (see Column 1, Lines 50-57 of Radloff).
Claim 6 corresponds to claim 5, wherein Radloff teaches that the status indicator comprises a time (see Column 7, Lines 4-19, Figure 8 and Column 11, Lines 38-59).
Referring to claims 12-13, see the rejection of claims 5-6, respectively.
Referring to claims 19-20, see the rejection of claims 5-6, 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
May 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights