DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s arguments filed 8-6-26 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection(s).
Double Patenting
3. A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
4. 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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,448. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the application is merely broader in scope than patented claims 1-20 and therefore an obvious variant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 8, 12, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingah et al., US 2018/0332356 in view of Jackson, US 2011/0234906, and in further view of Hirsch et al., US 2017/0171580.
Regarding claim 1, Ingah teaches of a system comprising:
at least one processor (See [0018] and [0029], processor); and
memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor performs a method (See [0018], [0029]-[0035] memory for executing instructions by the processor) comprising:
identifying at least one location of a user, wherein the at least one location is at least determined based on a set of a user’s coordinates and service address (See [0071] which discloses of obtaining location information for identifying their location with gps coordinates or residential address where either can be entered manually. Further, it should be noted that the at least location can be determined based on both in situations where the user enters address in one location and changes location and then uses gps and/or zip code for the other location);
querying at least one database for local channels associated with the at least one location (See [0065]-[0066], [0069], [0071], and [0079] which discloses of user request for updated program information from the data stores and metadata servers which includes local programming channels based on zip code/gps for location information for available content to be blended and merged into the EPG);
receiving at least one subset of local channels associated with the at least one location from the at least one database (See Figs.2A; Fig.3; Fig.4; [0017], [0027], [0047], [0052], [0066], and [0071] which discloses and illustrates receiving and displaying the blended and merged EPG data consisting of the channels including local channels gathered from the data stores and metadata servers);
Ingah is silent with respect to identifying at least one set of available local channels based on the at least one subset of local channels and providing the at least one set of available local channels for viewing.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jackson teaches identifying at least one set of available local channels based on the at least one subset of local channels (See [0014], [0030]-[0034] which discloses of based on the comparison identifying available local channels for merging into the EPG) and providing the at least one set of available local channels for viewing (See [0024]-[0025] and [0030]-[0035] selecting and providing the channel selected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ingah to have incorporated the teachings of Jackson for the mere benefit of being able to ensure channels of different sources displayed in a merged EPG have distinct channel identifiers.
The combination is silent with respect to the at least one location consists of coordinates and service address being a residential address which is indicated in a user profile associated with the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hirsch teaches of at least one location consists of coordinates and service address being a residential address which is indicated in a user profile associated with the user (See [0048]-[0051] Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ingah and Jackson to have incorporated the teachings of Hirsch for the mere benefit of being able to better provide location details of the user.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one location is at least one of: a zip code, an address, and a pair of GPS coordinates (See Ingah, [0071]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one database for local channels associated with the at least one location comprises at least one look-up table (See Jackson, [0026]-[0027] and [0031]-[0032] list of local channels at service provider/database).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the system of claim 1, wherein receiving EPG data associated with the at least one set of available local (Ingah, [0017], [0024], [0030], and [0046]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 12, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, Ingah teaches of a computer readable media storing computer executable instructions that when executed cause a computing system to perform a method comprising:
receiving at least one GPS location of at least one device (See [0071] gps location);
querying at least one database for local channels associated with the at least one GPS location of at least one device (See [0065]-[0066], [0069], [0071], and [0079] which discloses of user request for updated program information from the data stores and metadata servers which includes local programming channels based on zip code/gps for location information for available content to be blended and merged into the EPG);
receiving a list of local channels available for broadcast in the at least one GPS location (See Figs.2A; Fig.3; Fig.4; [0017], [0027], [0047], [0052], [0066], and [0071] which discloses and illustrates receiving and displaying the blended and merged EPG data consisting of the channels including local channels gathered from the data stores and metadata servers).
Ingah is silent with respect to providing the local channels on the list of available local channels for streaming via the OTT service.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jackson teaches identifying at least one set of available local channels based on the at least one subset of local channels (See [0014], [0030]-[0034] which discloses of based on the comparison identifying available local channels for merging into the EPG) and providing the available local channels for streaming via a service (See [0024]-[0025] and [0030]-[0035] selecting and providing the channel selected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ingah to have incorporated the teachings of Jackson for the mere benefit of being able to ensure channels of different sources displayed in a merged EPG have distinct channel identifiers.
8. Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingah et al., US 2018/0332356 in view of Jackson, US 2011/0234906, in view of Hirsch et al., US 2017/0171580, and in further view of Fertig et al., US 2014/0282699.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ingah, Jackson, and Hirsch teaches the system of claim 3.
The combination is silent with respect to wherein the at least one look-up table cross-references locations with local channels.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fertig teaches of wherein the at least one look-up table cross-references locations with local channels (See [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ingah, Jackson, and Hirsch for the mere benefit of listing only pertinent channels that can be received.
Regarding claim 16, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
9. Claims 5-6, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingah et al., US 2018/0332356 in view of Jackson, US 2011/0234906, in view of Hirsch et al., US 2017/0171580, in view of Chang, US 2019/0082230, and in further view of Huang et al., US 2015/0382037.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ingah, Jackson, and Hirsch teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises comparing at least one local channel identifier from the at least one subset of local channels to at least one database associated with another service (See Ingah,[0017]-[0018]; See Jackson, [0014], [0030], and [0042]).
However, the combination is silent with respect to the other channels/identifiers being that of OTT channel identifiers and of the another different services/sources being that of OTT sources/services.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chang teaches of the other channels/identifiers being that of OTT channel identifiers and of the another different services/sources being that of OTT sources/services (See Fig.4; [0017]; [0031], and [0068]-[0073] which discloses comparing and merging the different content related to other services including OTT content/services).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ingah, Jackson, and Hirsch to have incorporated the teachings of Chang for the mere benefit of providing compatibility with different types of sources and applications.
The combination is silent with respect to where the database is a licensing database.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches of wherein the database is of a licensing database (See [0025], [0033], and [0037]-[0039] which discloses of database 418 for containing content access rights and of determining whether the content has the rights to be distributed over the network based on the access rights).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ingah, Jackson, Hirsch, and Chang to have incorporated the teachings of Huang for the mere benefit of ensuring protection of content for authorized distributors and subscribers.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the at least one licensing database comprises a subset of local channels to which the OTT service has licensing rights to broadcast (See Huang, [0016], [0025]-[0028], [0033], and [0037]-[0039] network/content rights database containing OTT content for broadcasting through iptv; analysis of claims 1 and 3 subset of local channels in the metadata/epg database/servers).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Ingah, Jackson, and Chang teaches the system of claim 10 and determining when an overlap exists between the at least one local channel identifier and the at least one OTT channel identifier (See analysis of claim 10.).
The combination is silent with respect to exclude the at least one local channel from the at least one set of available local channels.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches of exclude the at least one local channel from the at least one set of available local channels (See [0016], [0026], and [0028] which discloses of filtering out/excluding duplicate channels/overlapped channels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ingah, Jackson, Hirsch, and Chang to have incorporated the teachings of Huang for the mere benefit of removing redundant content such that the same content is not displayed in the EPG allowing for other content to be listed.
Regarding claim 17, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 5 and 6.
10. Claims 7, 9-10, 13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingah et al., US 2018/0332356 in view of Jackson, US 2011/0234906, in view of Hirsch et al., US 2017/0171580, and in further view of Chang, US 2019/0082230.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ingah, Jackson, and Hirsch teaches the system of claim 1, wherein merging the EPG data associated with the at least one set of available local channels with the service further comprises formatting the EPG data to at least one EPG format associated with the service. (Jackson, [0030]-[0034]; Ingah, Fig.2-4; [0017], [0027], [0047], [0052], [0066], and [0071]).
The combination is silent with respect to the service being that of an OTT service.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chang teaches of the service being that of an OTT service (See Chang, Fig.4; [0017]-[0019]; [0031]; [0068]-[0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ingah, Jackson, and Hirsch to have incorporated the teachings of Chang for the mere benefit of providing compatibility with different types of sources and applications.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ingah, Jackson, and Hirsch, teaches the system of claim 8, wherein receiving EPG data associated with the at least one set of available local channels further comprises receiving EPG data from at least one service (Jackson, [0031]; Ingah, Fig.3).
The combination is silent with respect to the service being that of OTT.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chang teaches of the service being that of OTT (See Chang, Fig.4; [0017]-[0019]; [0068]-[0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ingah, Jackson, and Hirsch to have incorporated the teachings of Chang for the mere benefit of providing compatibility with different types of sources and applications.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ingah, Jackson, and Hirsch teaches the system of claim 1, wherein comparing at least one local channel identifier from the at least one subset of local channels to at least one set of service channels identifiers associated with a service further comprises determining whether an overlap exists between the at least one local channel identifier and at least one service channel identifier (Jackson, [0030]-[0034] determining overlap between channel identifiers; Ingah, Fig.2-4; [0017], [0027], [0047], [0052], [0066], and [0071]).
The combination is silent with respect to the service being that of OTT.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chang teaches of the service being that of OTT (See Chang, Fig.4; [0017]-[0019]; [0068]-[0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ingah, Jackson, and Hirsch to have incorporated the teachings of Chang for the mere benefit of providing compatibility with different types of sources and applications.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ingah, Jackson, and Hirsch teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the at least one set of available local channels comprises local channels available for streaming via the at least one service (Jackson, [0031]; Ingah, Fig.3; analysis of claim 1).
The combination is silent with respect to the service being that of OTT.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chang teaches of the service being that of OTT (See Chang, Fig.4; [0017]-[0019]; [0068]-[0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ingah, Jackson, and Hirsch to have incorporated the teachings of Chang for the mere benefit of providing compatibility with different types of sources and applications.
Regarding claim 18, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 9-10.
Conclusion
11. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ricky Chin whose telephone number is 571-270-3753. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Ricky Chin/
Primary Examiner
AU 2424
(571) 270-3753
Ricky.Chin@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights