DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new rejections below, necessitated by amendment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 10, 11, 15, 17, 20 and 21 are 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.
Double Patenting
Claims 2-4, 9, 12-14 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,427 in view of Conrad et al., US 6,810,527 and Dykeman et al., US 2013/0174223.
2 and 12. The parent claim teaches most of the limitations of claim 1, but is silent on the second platform being an airline. Conrad teaches the steps of claim 2 (as cited below in the 103 rejections) are performed on an airline content access platform. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that the parent claims could be implemented in an airline content platform as taught in Conrad, in order to provide (and sell) entertainment to passengers, relieving boredom and creating ad impression or sales opportunities related to the available content.
Conrad and the parent claim are silent on selecting access duration based on content duration. Dykeman teaches a video system wherein the temporary access duration is selected based on a length of the content item [temporary access right corresponds to length of content asset, paras. 51, 53, 112, 133, 138, 210].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, ensuring that the passenger’s access to content is limited and does not allow them to view multiple shows without purchasing them separately, thereby increasing revenue.
3 and 13. The parent claims do not teach a calendar event. Conrad teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: determining a calendar event corresponding to the upcoming flight, wherein the plurality of content identifiers corresponding to the offer are displayed on the user device based at least in part on the determining [e.g. calendar of special event may be used to target content, cols. 15-16, ll. 45-6].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Conrad, allowing targeted content based on upcoming events such as a convention in the destination city [see Conrad, col. 15-16, ll. 45-6]. This will increase passenger interest in the content and encourage them to purchase it or watch ads before or during the content.
4 and 14. Conrad teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of content identifiers is retrieved from the airline entertainment platform prior to the upcoming flight [content is cached cols. 11-12, ll. 51-18; col. 15, 5-8].
9 and 19. Conrad and Dykeman teach the method of claim 2, further comprising:
receiving a selection of a second content identifier from the plurality of content identifiers; and causing transmission of a second license to the airline entertainment platform, wherein the second license provides temporary access to a second content item corresponding to the second content identifier, and wherein a temporary access duration of the second license is selected based on a length of the second content item [these steps are met as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above; repeating the steps does not distinguish over the cited references; note that Dykeman Figs. 8 and 9 show multiple listings; after one license expires or content is completed, the user could again select a program and the method repeats for that selected content].
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,427 in view of Conrad et al., US 6,810,527. The parent claims, combined with Conrad with the rationale given above in the double patenting rejection of claim 1, teach the limitations of claims 6 and 16.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,427 in view of Conrad and Dykeman as cited above in view of Williams, US 2014/0298169.
8 and 18 (from 2). The parent claims are silent on user viewing history. Williams teaches an in-flight playlist system comprising: selecting the plurality of content identifiers for display based on each of the content identifiers corresponding to a viewing history associated with the user [para. 48]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references in order to effectively target content to the user and increase the likelihood that they will purchase and/or enjoy the content.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims would have been anticipated by the reference claim. Both sets of claims are directed to a method of accessing content on a secondary platform, and one of ordinary skill would see the claims in question as obvious variants of each other.
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 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2-4, 9, 12-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad et al., US 6,810,527 in view of Dykeman et al., US 2013/0174223.
Claims 2 and 12. Conrad teaches a method comprising:
control circuitry [col. 8, 12-19] and input/output circuitry [227, Fig. 3; col. 10, 60-63];
providing for display a plurality of content items on a user device associated with a user, wherein the plurality of content items are available on an airline entertainment platform and scheduled to be available to the user during an upcoming flight [col. 11, 51-59; col. 10, 50-63; col. 13, 1-8];
receiving a selection of content from a passenger [col. 10, 60-63];
based at least in part on receiving the selection, causing transmission of a license to the airline entertainment platform, wherein the license provides temporary access to a content item [access/entitlement control messages are transmitted to permit access, Fig. 2, col. 5, 39-46; col. 6, 1-9; cols. 10-11, 60-24; col. 14, 18-57];
providing access to the content item via the airline entertainment platform during the upcoming flight in accordance with the license [col. 1, 23-35; col. 9, 28-46; col. 10, 50-63; col. 11, 51-59; col. 12, 1-15; col. 13, 20-30].
Conrad is silent on generating a display of content identifiers and selecting access duration based on content duration. Dykeman teaches a video system including generating for display a plurality of content identifiers on a user device associated with a user, wherein the plurality of content identifiers corresponds to an offer to access available content [Figs. 1, 2, 9, paras. 39, 53, 133, 161, 213];
receiving a selection of a content identifier from the plurality of content identifiers [paras. 38, 39, 46, 52];
wherein the temporary access duration is selected based on a length of the content item [temporary access right corresponds to length of content asset, paras. 51, 53, 112, 133, 138, 210].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, ensuring that the passenger’s access to content is limited and does not allow them to view multiple shows without purchasing them separately, thereby increasing revenue.
3 and 13. Conrad teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising:
determining a calendar event corresponding to the upcoming flight, wherein the plurality of content identifiers corresponding to the offer are displayed on the user device based at least in part on the determining [e.g. calendar of special event may be used to target content, cols. 15-16, ll. 45-6].
4 and 14. Conrad teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of content identifiers is retrieved from the airline entertainment platform prior to the upcoming flight [content is cached cols. 11-12, ll. 51-18; col. 15, 5-8].
9 and 19. Conrad and Dykeman teach the method of claim 2, further comprising:
receiving a selection of a second content identifier from the plurality of content identifiers; and causing transmission of a second license to the airline entertainment platform, wherein the second license provides temporary access to a second content item corresponding to the second content identifier, and wherein a temporary access duration of the second license is selected based on a length of the second content item [these steps are met as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above; repeating the steps does not distinguish over the cited references; note that Dykeman Figs. 8 and 9 show multiple listings; after one license expires or content is completed, the user could again select a program and the method repeats for that selected content].
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad and Dykeman as cited above in view of Williams, US 2014/0298169.
8 and 18 (from 2). The above references are silent on user viewing history. Williams teaches an in-flight playlist system comprising: selecting the plurality of content identifiers for display based on each of the content identifiers corresponding to a viewing history associated with the user [para. 48]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references in order to effectively target content to the user and increase the likelihood that they will purchase and/or enjoy the content.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
