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 5/6/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/26/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent No. 12,248,508 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has cancelled dependent claims 12 and 25 and integrated these limitations into independent claims 2 and 15, respectively. Applicant has further amended the claims to state that “determining whether the device is authorized to access the selected at least one content offering based at least in part on … the set of rules of the identified access profile” and “authorizing the device to access the selected at least one content offering based at least in part on … the set of rules of the identified access profile”. The Examiner notes that Bates teaches these limitations and the rejection has been updated below.
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 2-3, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-16, 19-18, 21-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0067811) in view of Worley, III (U.S. Patent No. 10,595,052).
Referring to claim 2, Bates discloses a wireless communication system (see Figure 1).
Bates also discloses providing a communication service to a plurality of devices within a mobile platform via the wireless communication system (see Figure 1 for elements 122-126, 120, 114 and 110).
Bates also discloses providing at least one device of the plurality of devices, a portal that displays a plurality of content offerings available via the wireless communication system to a user of the device (see Paragraphs 0034-0035).
Bates also discloses receiving a request for a selected at least one content offering of the plurality of content offerings from the device (see Paragraphs 0037-0038).
Bates also discloses maintaining a database of access profiles for accessing the content offerings via the wireless communication system, wherein each of the access profiles corresponds to a respective set of content offerings available via the wireless communication system (see Figure 1 for element 118 and Paragraphs 0033-0034 and 0039 and Figure 5) and defines a set of rules for the respective set of content offerings, the set of rules based on an identity of a user associated with the device (see Paragraph 0052 for using machine learning techniques (rules/model) to identify multimedia contents that are identified the user’s social media information (identity) to identify multimedia content relevant to that passenger and further note Figure 5 and Paragraphs 0055-0057 for a detailed teaching of how the machine learning techniques are applied to authorize the user to view certain content offerings).
Bates also discloses identifying an access profile from the database that is associated with the selected at least one content offering (see Paragraphs 0036-0037).
Bates also discloses determining whether the device is authorized to access the selected at least one content offering based on the set of rules of the identified access profile (see Paragraph 0052 for using machine learning techniques (rules/model) to identify multimedia contents that are identified the user’s social media information (identity) to identify multimedia content relevant to that passenger and further note Figure 5 and Paragraphs 0055-0057 for a detailed teaching of how the machine learning techniques are applied to authorize the user to view certain content offerings and Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0058-0061 for permitting the user to receive content offerings based on the above mentioned process).
Bates also discloses authorizing the device to access the selected at least one content offering based at least in part on the set of rules of the identified access profile (see Paragraph 0052 for using machine learning techniques (rules/model) to identify multimedia contents that are identified the user’s social media information (identity) to identify multimedia content relevant to that passenger and further note Figure 5 and Paragraphs 0055-0057 for a detailed teaching of how the machine learning techniques are applied to authorize the user to view certain content offerings and Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0058-0061 for permitting the user to receive content offerings based on the above mentioned process).
Bates also discloses establishing communications between the device and one or more sources of the selected at least one content offering via a session based at least in part on a determination that the device is authorized to access the selected at least one content offering (see Paragraphs 0029 and 0037 for presenting a GUI of content offerings determined by the server based on the user requesting the GUI).
Bates fails to teach determining whether the device is authorized to access the selected at least one content offering based at least in part on the identified access profile and authorizing the device to access the selected at least one content offering based at least in part on comparing the selected at least one content offering and the device to an identified access profile.
Worley discloses determining whether the device is authorized to access the selected at least one content offering based at least in part on the identified access profile and authorizing the device to access the selected at least one content offering based at least in part on comparing the selected at least one content offering and the device to an identified access profile (see Column 2, Lines 29-36, Column 4, Lines 8-13, Figure 5, Column 8, Lines 45-58 and Column 10, Lines 8-16).
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 system of Bates, using the access permission/DRM rights functionality, as taught by Worley, for the purpose of allowing a user to travel with the user on a given conveyance (see Column 2, Lines 14-18 of Worley).
Referring to claim 3, Bates discloses receiving a second request from a second device of the plurality of devices for a different selected at least one content offering (see Figure 1 for the system having multiple seatback devices 104).
Worley discloses authorizing a second device to access the different selected at least one content offering based at least in part on comparing the different selected at least one content offering and the second device to an identified second access profile (see Figure 1 for multiple travelers having access to the system and Column 2, Line 46 through Column 3, Line 7).
Referring to claim 6, Bates discloses streaming mobile data traffic associated with the selected at least one content offering to the device (see Paragraphs 0024 and 0046).
Referring to claim 8, Bates discloses communicating mobile data traffic associated with the selected at least one content offering on beam resources of at least one satellite beam of a satellite communication system, wherein the wireless communication system comprises the satellite communication system (see Paragraph 0033).
Referring to claim 9, Bates discloses receiving multimedia content associated with the particular content offering from a content provider, wherein the content provider is external to the wireless communication system (see Figure 1 for the Ground Server 116).
Referring to claim 10, Bates discloses determining a preference of a user associated with the particular device (see Paragraphs 0008, 0011 and 0034).
Referring to claim 11, Worley discloses determine that the plurality of content offerings complies with a DRM policy (see Column 2, Lines 29-36, Column 4, Lines 8-13, Figure 5, Column 8, Lines 45-58 and Column 10, Lines 8-16).
Referring to claim 13, Worley discloses that the plurality of content offerings includes multimedia content from a plurality of different content providers (see Column 2, Line 60 through Column 3, Line 7).
Referring to claims 15-16, 19-18, 21-24 and 26, see the rejection of claims 2-3, 6, 8-11 and 13, respectively.
Claims 4-5 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0067811) in view of Worley, III (U.S. Patent No. 10,595,052) in further view of Slater et al. (U.S. Application Publication 2004/0010588).
Referring to claim 4, Bates and Worley disclose all of the claim limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach determining a traffic policy of the mobile platform, where the traffic policy is based at least in part on a characteristic of the mobile platform.
Slater discloses determining a traffic policy of the mobile platform, wherein the plurality of content offerings is based at least in part on the traffic policy (see Paragraphs 0480-0492).
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 system of Bates and Worley, using the DRM functionality, as taught by Slater, for the purpose of allowing programmable specification of network and serving conditions that require remedial action and the action(s) to be taken based upon those conditions becoming true (see the bottom of Paragraph 0492).
Claim 5 corresponds to claim 4, wherein Slater further discloses that the traffic policy is based on a characteristic of the mobile platform (see Paragraphs 0480-0492 for monitoring network latency and using this monitored parameter to adjust network bandwidth using a policy).
Referring to claims 17-18, see the rejection of claims 4-5, respectively.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0067811) in view of Worley, III (U.S. Patent No. 10,595,052) in further view of Bianchetti et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0099514).
Claim 7 corresponds to claim 6, wherein Worley discloses that a particular category is associated with a event, and streaming the mobile data traffic further comprises streaming multimedia content associated with the event (see Column 1, Lines 46-59).
Bates and Worley fail to teach streaming of a live event.
Bianchetti discloses streaming of a live event in a vehicle display system (see Paragraphs 0026, 0030, 0035 and 0040).
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 system of Bates and Worley, using the live event streaming functionality, as taught by Bianchetti, for the purpose of allowing the simultaneous reception of a stream of packetized data by a plurality of UE within a particular cell or routing area to reduce the data bandwidth requirements thus increasing the maximum number of connected users within the area (see Paragraph 0035 of Bianchetti).
Referring to claim 20, see the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 14 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0067811) in view of Worley, III (U.S. Patent No. 10,595,052) in further view of Maharajh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0195664).
Referring to claims 14 and 27, Bates and Worley teach all of the limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach providing each device of the plurality of devices the respective set of content offerings of the plurality of content offerings for display based at least in part on a device-specific profile associated with the corresponding device.
Maharajh discloses providing each device of the plurality of devices the respective set of content offerings of the plurality of content offerings for display based at least in part on a device-specific profile associated with the corresponding device (see Paragraphs 0261 and 0283).
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 system of Bates and Worley, using device profile content selection and presentation functionality, as taught by Maharajh, for the purpose of bridging the divide between media companies and digital distribution channels enabling both to benefit from the mobile content universe (see the bottom of Paragraph 0005 of Maharajh).
Conclusion
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 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
August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights