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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claims Status
Claims 2-21 are pending in the application.
Claim 1 has been cancelled.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment claims 2-21 on 05/06/2025.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 2-6, 8-16 and 18-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-6, 9,11,14-16 and 19 of U.S. Patent No.11,451,874 B2 (“the Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current pending application and Patent claims are directed to the same invention with a different in scope (broader in scope than the patent claim) and are therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 2 in the pending application claim is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 1 and 6.
Claim 3 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 4.
Claim 4, in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 5.
Claim 5 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 9.
Claim 6 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 4.
Claim 8 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 1.
Claim 9 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 6.
Claim 10 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 1.
Claim 11 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 1 and 5.
Claim 12 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 11.
Claim 13 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 14.
Claim 14 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 15.
Claim 15 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 19.
Claim 16 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 14.
Claim 18 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 11.
Claim 19 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 16.
Claim 20 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 11.
Claim 21 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 11 and 5.
Claims 7 and 17 are additionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,451,874 B2 (“the Patent”) in view of US 2008/0066011 A1 to Urrabazo et al.
As to claims 7 and 17, the Patent discloses the majority of the current claimed limitation, except, “wherein: the guidance data comprises a listing of players on a fantasy sports team; and determining that the first information about the event is related to the information in the guidance data comprises determining that the first information about the event relates to a player from the listing of players”.
In the related art, Urrabazo discloses wherein: the guidance data comprises a listing of players on a fantasy sports team; and determining that the first information about the event is related to the information in the guidance data comprises determining that the first information about the event relates to a player from the listing of players (see page.4, ¶0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Patent and Urrabazo to arrive at the claimed subject matter, in order to order to provides for visualization of actual sporting and fantasy sports information for viewing while multiple channels may be tuned simultaneously.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0325556 A1 to Hoang et al in view of US 2008/0066011 A1 to Urrabazo et al.
As to claims 2 and 12, Hoang discloses a method [A system, comprising: a screen; and control circuitry](see fig.1 and 2), comprising: while displaying a first media asset, detecting the indication that the event has occurred in a second media asset; based at least in part on detecting an indication that an event has occurred, determining whether first information about the event is related to information in guidance data; and based at least in part on determining that the first information about the event is related to the information in the guidance data, displaying, simultaneously with the first media asset (see fig.4,6 and 9; page.4, ¶0045-¶0047, ¶0050, ¶0051).
Hoang fails explicitly discloses a progress bar comprising (a) the first information about the event and (b) other information about at least one other event has occurred in the second media asset, that is related to the event over at least a portion of the first media asset.
Urrabazo discloses a progress bar comprising (a) the first information about the event and (b) other information about at least one other event has occurred in the second media asset, that is related to the event over at least a portion of the first media asset (see fig,6; page.4, ¶0067-¶0069; discloses while the viewer watching Giants vs. Cowboys game 606, presently focused in the second level of the hierarchy as indicated by the highlighted "NFL" icon 602 in a second position, a visualizing information for the Arizona vs. Buffalo game, and presents information regarding the score of the game 620, as well as quarter, time remaining information and visualize alerts regarding the presence of certain statistics, and also other information like direction of the drive and location of the ball on the field 628,the first down line 626 and the distance covered by the present drive 624,the information regarding the current down is displayed 630 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoang with the teaching as taught by Urrabazo in order to provides for visualization of actual sporting information for viewing while multiple channels may be tuned simultaneously.
As to claims 3 and 13, Hoang further discloses identifying the information about the event using metadata (see page.5, ¶0060-¶0061).
As to claims 4 and 14, Hoang further discloses wherein the second media asset comprises any of a first run or live media asset, and the guidance data is updated with progression of the second media asset (see page.3, ¶0039).
As to claims 6 and 16, Hoang in view of Urrabazo further discloses wherein: the guidance data comprises a user profile; and determining that the first information about the event is related to the information in the guidance data comprises determining that the user profile contains an indication of a preference for at least one of an event type of the event, a character from the event, a person from the event, or a team from the event (see Hoang page.2, ¶0028 and see Urrabazo; page.4, ¶0042).
As to claims 7 and 17, Hoang in view of Urrabazo further discloses wherein: the guidance data comprises a listing of players on a fantasy sports team; and determining that the first information about the event is related to the information in the guidance data comprises determining that the first information about the event relates to a player from the listing of players(see Hoang page.2, ¶0028 and see Urrabazo; page.4, ¶0042).
As to claims 8 and 18, Hoang in view Urrabazo further discloses wherein the event is a first event, the method further comprising: while displaying the first media asset, determining a second event has occurred in the second media asset; and based at least in part on determining that second information about the second event matches information in the guidance data: displaying, simultaneously with the first media asset and the second information about the first event, the progress bar with the information about the second event (see Hoang; fig.4,6 and 9; page.4, ¶0045-¶0047,¶0050-¶0051 and see Urrabazo fig,6; page.4, ¶0067-¶0069).
As to claims 9 and 19, Hoang in view Urrabazo further discloses wherein the guidance data includes information from more than one source, the method further comprising: based at least in part on determining that the second information about the second event is related to information from more than one source: displaying the information about the second event in a manner that is visually distinct from the display of the first information about the first event (see Hoang page.4, ¶0050-¶0051 and see Urrabazo fig,6; page.4, ¶0067-¶0069).
As to claims 10 and 20, Urrabazo further further discloses based at least in part on selection of the event of the progress bar, performing an action associated with the first media asset (see fig,6; page.4, ¶0067-¶0069).
Claims 5, 11, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0325556 A1 to Hoang et al in view of US 2008/0066011 A1 to Urrabazo et al, and further in view of US 2015/0181301 A1 to Bloch et al.
As to claims 5 and 15, Hoang and Urrabazo fails explicitly discloses wherein: the guidance data comprises posts on social media; and determining that the first information about the event is related to the information in the guidance data comprises determining a social media post references the event.
Bloch discloses wherein: the guidance data comprises posts on social media; and determining that the information about the event matches the information in the guidance data comprises determining a social media post references the event (see fig.4; page.5, ¶0044, ¶0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoang and Urrabazo with the teaching as taught by Bloch in order to provide the most popular event that would be interesting to the user.
As to claims 11 and 21, Bloch further discloses display the second media asset; receive a command to display the first media asset after the second media asset is displayed, wherein the command is received at a progression point in the second media asset; based at least in part on receiving the command to display the first media asset, display the first media asset; and determine the event has occurred after the progression point, wherein determining whether the first information about the event is related to the information in the guidance data is further based at least in part on determining the event has occurred after the progression point (see fig.4; page.5, ¶0044).
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 MULUGETA MENGESHA whose telephone number is (469)295-9212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM ET.
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.
MULUGETA MENGESHA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/Mulugeta Mengesha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
