Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-31 (renumbered by Examiner – see below) have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Claim Objections (Erroneous Claim Numbering)
Claims 20-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim set includes two claims numbered claim 20 (independent claim 20 and the subsequent dependent claim). Claims must be numbered consecutively. See MPEP 608.01(j). For purposes of Examination, the second claim 20 has been renumbered claim 31. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 21 and 31 (renumbered) are further objected to because they recite “the system of claim 19, wherein”, but claim 19 (and its parent claims) do not provide antecedent basis for “the system.” It appears that dependent claims 21 and 31 were erroneously recited as dependent on claim 19 but were intended to depend on independent system claim 20. Therefore Examiner will interpret dependent claims 21 and 31 (renumbered) as being dependent on system claim 20. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the media rich template” in line 8 should be replaced with “the at least one media rich template.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the external data feeds” in line 1 should be replaced with “the one or more external data feeds.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and web service” in line 2 should be replaced with “and a web service.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: “one more XML feeds” in line 1 should be replaced with “one or more XML feeds.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and web service” in line 2 should be replaced with “and a web service.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the server” in line 1 should be replaced with “the at least one server.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the user" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the visual design” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the media repository” in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the client computer” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 6-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 5.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the user" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 6-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the multimedia communication templates" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 7-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 6.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the exchange” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 8.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the assigned media assets” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 8.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the updates” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 9.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the client computer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the multimedia communication” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the user” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the media rich template” in line 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the multimedia communication template” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 12.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the visual design” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the one or more slides” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 13.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the exchange” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the exchange” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the communication project content” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a structured data object” in line 2. It is unclear if “a structured data object” refers to the structured data object recited in claim 11 or a different structured data object. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret “a structured data object” in claim 17 as referring to any structured data object including the structured data object recited in claim 11. Claims 18-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 17.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the one or more multimedia files” in line 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 21-23 and 31 (renumbered) are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 20
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the visual design in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 21-23 and 31 (renumbered) are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 20
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the multimedia files” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 25-30 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 24.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the visual design” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 25-30 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 24.
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.
Claims 1-31 (as renumbered by Examiner) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 12651280; claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12646092; claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12450627; claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11978088; claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12248964; claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11798031; claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11803876; claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11669863; claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11488206; claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11587117; claims 1-35 of U.S. Patent No. 10572898; over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10565618; over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 10068253; over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 9,805,393; over claims 1-41 of U.S. Patent No. 9,361,632; over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,930,832; over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,356,253; and over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,497. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application and patents are directed to the same subject matter and similar functions, including a media repository for storing media objects and templates, providing a user with an interface, enabling a user to select communication project templates and media assets for integration into the template for assembling media communication, and distributing the communication amongst users.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication Number 20020036654 (“Evans”) (disclosing a template selector for selecting at least one template from the template database; a product selector for selecting at least one product reference from the product database, each of the at least one product reference including at least one of an image and text);
US Patent Application Publication Number 20050038700 (“Doemling”) (disclosing a method for the development of online advertisements that are built up of a plurality of components and computer file format types, whose interactions, positioning, and other characteristics are flexibly defined and/or modified through a user interface);
US Patent Application Publication Number 20050240596 (“Worthen”) (disclosing assembling rich media content at a first computer system; encoding the rich media content into a plurality of computer readable data formats; and uploading the encoded rich media content from the user computer system)
US Patent Application Publication Number 20090235364 (“Cohen”) (disclosing altering derivative versions of media by incorporated substituted content);
US Patent Application Publication Number 20060277105 (“Harris”) (disclosing a template allowing for a background video stream and one text layer);
US Patent Application Publication Number 20020194195 (“Fenton”) (disclosing a publishing system and process for creating, editing, sharing, and publishing media content items);
US Patent Application Publication Number 20060085431 (“Burns”) (disclosing a method in which advertisers may target based on content type, i.e. web pages, files, e-mails, pictures, images, video, favorites, history, and contacts (e.g., the type of program rather than the private information stored in the program);
US Patent Application Publication Number 20060074751 (“Kline”) (disclosing using templates to dynamically generating customized website content);
US Patent Application Publication Number 8447651 (“Scholl”) (disclosing using an advertising message template to generate an advertising message);
However, the prior art fails to teach each and every limitation as claimed, and would involve hindsight reasoning to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the claims are considered allowable over the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II whose telephone number is (571)272-6904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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.
/ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights