Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: The instant claim ends with the title of the application, which was clearly not intended to be part of the instant claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,635,302. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are fully within the scope of the claims of ‘302, and are thus deemed to be an obvious variation.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,491,680. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are directed serves to provide a message addendum responsive to a trigger action, while the claims of ‘680 are directed towards the presentation of a message element corollary during a transition between states, where such is provided in claim 2 of the instant application, and thus the claims of the instant application are substantially within the scope of the claims of ‘680.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2007/0088852 (Levkovitz) in view of US 2007/0022437 (Gergen).
With regard to claim 1, Levkovitz teaches a method for assembling a media element on a computing device, the method comprising:
detecting a distinct broadcast segment and a first message addendum discrete from the distinct broadcast segment (Levkovitz: Paragraphs [0100] and [0129]);
storing in memory of the computing device at least the first message addendum and at least one additional message addendum subsequently received by a communication module (Levkovitz: Paragraph [0157]);
presenting at least one media element comprising one or more message addendums, the at least one media element presented determined by the correlative relation of the first message addendum to the at least one additional message addendum (Levkovitz: Paragraph [0158]); and
communicating, by a transmitter of the computing device, at least a media element data packet to at least one server computer (Levkovitz: Paragraph [0104]).
Levkovitz fails to disclose, but Gergen teaches analyzing, by one or more processors, a trigger action generated in association with the distinct broadcast segment, whereby the analysis determines a correlative relation of the first message addendum to the at least one additional message addendum (Gergen: Paragraph [0177]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to analyze, by one or more processors, a trigger action generated in association with the distinct broadcast segment, whereby the analysis determines a correlative relation of the first message addendum to the at least one additional message addendum to provide related services across broadcast media in a consistent and coordinated fashion (Gergen: Paragraph [0011]).
With regard to claim 2, Levkovitz in view of Gergen teaches wherein the trigger action includes at least one of the following: a change in power state of the computing device, a transition state of the computing device (Levkovitz: Paragraph [0160]).
With regard to claim 3, Levkovitz in view of Gergen teaches wherein the trigger action includes at least one of the following: passage of a predetermined period of time, an input from a user, a memory storage operation by the computing device, a change in broadcast source, detecting a second distinct broadcast segment (Levkovitz: Paragraph [0159] and [0160]).
With regard to claim 4, Levkovitz in view of Gergen teaches wherein the trigger action includes at least one of the following: receiving a communication by the computing device, sending a communication by the computing device (Gergen: Paragraph [0147]).
With regard to claim 5, Levkovitz in view of Gergen teaches wherein the media element data packet includes at least one of the following: data identifying the at least one media element, identification of the presentation iteration corollary to the at least one media element, data identifying the first message addendum, data identifying the source of the first message addendum, data identifying the second message addendum, data identifying the source of the one additional message addendum, data corollary to the distribution of at least one media element, data corollary to presentation of at least one media element, identification of the trigger action generated in association with the distinct broadcast segment (Levkovitz: Paragraph [0104] and [0161]).
With regard to claim 6, Levkovitz in view of Gergen teaches wherein the trigger action activates communication of data that enables identification of the specific transmission of the distinct broadcast segment from the computing device to at least one server computer (Levkovitz: Paragraph [0104]).
With regard to claim 7, Levkovitz in view of Gergen teaches wherein the communicated data includes at least one of the following: a geographic location of the computing device, a user's relationship to a particular demographic group, a criterion determined priority, time of day, usage of the computing device, previous session behavior of a user of the computing device, identification of the source of the distinct broadcast segment, identification of a user of the of the computing device, identification of the computing device (Levkovitz: Paragraphs [0101], [0159], [0160], and [0194]).
With regard to claim 8, Levkovitz in view of Gergen teaches wherein a first media element comprising at a minimum one message addendum is presented through activation of a first trigger action and an updated media element comprising at a minimum one message addendum is presented through activation of a second trigger action (Levkovitz: Paragraph [0160]).
With regard to claim 9, Levkovitz in view of Gergen teaches further comprising: receiving data that enables identification of the distinct broadcast segment in conjunction with the detection of the distinct broadcast segment; presenting the distinct broadcast segment; detecting a response to the distinct broadcast segment; generating a response data packet comprising at least the data that enables the identification of the distinct broadcast segment; and communicating the response data packet to the at least one server computer (Levkovitz: Paragraph [0101] and [0104]).
With regard to claims 10-18, the instant claims are similar to claims 1-9, and are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights