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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Instant application is a continuation of three application in the chain of continuity. Said applications correspond to issued patents 11,659,218; 11,985,369; and 12,294,754.
Claims 1-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of USPN 11,659,218; claims 1-21 of USPN 11,985,369; and claims 1-39 of USPN 12,294,754. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
For example, comparing instant method of claim 1 with the exemplary method of claim 1 of USPN 11,659,218, it appears that instant claims 1 and 2 recites features of claim 1 of the issued patent and lack the recitation of determining an alternative content. Accordingly, instant claim 1 is broader than the patented claim 1, therefore, obvious over patented claim 1.
Similar analysis applies to the remainder of claims in the issued patents in the chain of continuity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-18, 20, 22-26, 28, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Piepenbrink et al., USPGPUB 2011/0055866 (hereinafter “Piepenbrink”). Piepenbrink reference was cited in the IDS filed on 6/26/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Piepenbrink discloses a method (Abstract, Figs. 1-4 and corresponding descriptions) comprising:
receiving, by a server of a plurality of servers, information associating the server with a content item of a plurality of content items, wherein each of the plurality of content items is associated with a corresponding server of the plurality of servers (Plurality of servers as shown in Fig. 1, and described in exemplary ¶¶ [37]-[42]); and
sending, by the server of the plurality of servers and to a user device, a condition associated with restricting access to the content item, wherein the user device is configured to determine whether to output the content item based on the condition (¶¶ [57]-[62], [65]).
Regarding claim 2, Piepenbrink discloses wherein the condition associated with restricting access to the content item is a blackout condition (¶¶ [19], [23]).
Regarding claim 4, Piepenbrink discloses wherein the server of the plurality of servers is a blackout information server configured for sending blackout information to a plurality of user devices (As analyzed with respect to claim 1, further see ¶¶ [25], [37]-[39]).
Regarding claim 6, Piepenbrink discloses wherein the server of the plurality of servers is configured to receive the condition associated with restricting access to the content item from a blackout managing server configured to manage the plurality of servers (¶¶ [25], [37]-39]; Operation of OSS/BSS and conditional access system. Furthermore, any device within a distributed processing environment is capable of managing others based on network conditions/ assignments of roles, ¶ [38]).
Regarding claim 7, Piepenbrink discloses wherein sending the condition associated with restricting access to the content item causes the user device to determine that the user device satisfies the condition associated with restricting access to the content (¶¶ [62]-[65]).
Regarding claim 8, Piepenbrink discloses wherein causing the user device to determine that the user device satisfies the condition associated with restricting access to the content item is based on comparing the condition associated with restricting access to the content item to location information associated with one or more of the user devices or an account associated with the user device (¶¶ [11]-[12], [25], [39], [41]).
The device of claims 9-10, 12, and 14-16 recite similar features as those of the methods of claims 1-2, 4, and 6-8, respectively, effectuated by the same, therefore, are rejected by the same analysis.
The computer program product of claims 17-18, 20, and 22-24 recite similar features as those of the methods of claims 1-2, 4, and 6-8, respectively, effectuated by the same, therefore, are rejected by the same analysis.
The system of claims 25-26, 28, and 30-32 recite similar features as those of the methods of claims 1-2, 4, and 6-8, respectively, effectuated by the same, therefore, are rejected by the same analysis.
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.
Claims 3, 11, 19, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piepenbrink, in view of Williams et al., USPGPUB 2019/0149887 (hereinafter “Williams”).
Regarding claims 3, 11, 19, and 27 Piepenbrink disclose device information being user identification/ account and location information, but is not explicit in wherein the device information is associated with the type of device associated with the user device.
However, Williams discloses a method, system, and computer program product for distribution of content to a user device wherein the content is subject to viewing rules (Fig. 10, ¶¶ [65]-[77]) and restrictions/ blackouts are determined based on the device information is associated with the type of device associated with the user device (¶ [76]).
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 the system of Piepenbrink with Williams’ teachings in order to provide granular subscription, provisioning opportunities for additional revenue for the content providers and/or increased reliability of service based on the identification of users’ environment.
Claims 5, 13, 21, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piepenbrink, in view of Shoemake et al., USPGPUB 2014/0333713 (hereinafter “Shoemake”). Shoemake reference was cited in the IDS of 06/26/2025
Regarding claims 5, 13, 21, and 29, Piepenbrink is silent on receiving, from the user device, data associated with establishing a persistent connection with the server of the plurality of servers, wherein the persistent connection comprises a websocket connection to the server of the plurality of servers.
However, Shoemake discloses a method, system, and computer program product for making connections across a communications/ CDN network (Fig. 1, ¶ [18]) wherein the user device and the server exchange information via establishment of persistent connections and WebSocket connection (¶ [107]).
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 the system of Piepenbrink with Shoemake’s teachings in order to make use of a wide variety of well-known and ubiquitous CDN/ IP based network protocols.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R MARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-7 ET flex.
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 J 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.
/JAMES R MARANDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights