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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 53, 55-61, 64, 66-72 have been amended.
Claims 54 and 65 are canceled.
Claims 73 and 74 are newly added.
Claims 53, 55-64, and 66-74 are presently pending.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 53 and 64 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Although a new ground of rejection has been used to address additional limitations that have been added to Claims 53 and 64, a response is considered necessary for several of applicant's arguments since references Schink, Siddiqui, and Bantz will continue to be used to meet several claimed limitations.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Siddiqui reference (see Remarks, pgs. 9-10), the Examiner disagrees. Applicant appears to attack Siddiqui as arguing the selecting a rating that a viewer desires to satisfy constitutes a parental guidance setting. It is noted that ‘parental guidance settings’ typically refers to the act of adults/parents controlling the types of content that may be viewed by another user, such as a child (as described in [0004] of the Specification). This is in contrast to the teachings of Siddiqui that allows a viewer to selectively control the content that they themselves are presented. As such, even though the preference settings of Siddiqui are discussed with respect to settings based on content ratings, the ratings themselves are an indicator of the user’s own preferences of types of content and not a ‘parental guidance setting’ as the ratings/filters are a reflection of the type of content the user themself wishes to view or avoid and not prescribed filters dictated and generated by other users. Even arguendo that the recitation of ‘parental guidance settings’ necessarily was equitable to any content rating, it is noted that the content ratings of Siddiqui are predominantly exemplary in nature, and the teachings of Siddiqui are directed toward a user applying settings to their own profile that allows for output content to be modified in accordance to those preferences. The Bantz reference of record further teaches that a user may set categories of content that they wish to avoid (i.e., not content ratings). As such the combined teachings of the art of record reasonably disclose, teach, and suggest the subject matter of Claims 53 and 64.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 53, 55, 57-64, 66, 68-72 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,316,910 B2 in view of Siddiqui (US 2003/0049014 A1). The ‘910 Patent clearly discloses the aspects detecting a user present or approaching a device outputting content, identifying a profile associated with the detected person, and comparing characteristics of the profile with characteristics of the output content, and responsive to detecting a mismatch/conflict in the comparison, warning the user to not approach and replacing visual images output with an image that conforms with the user’s profile. The dependent claims of the ‘910 patent also discloses the various features of the user detection, and profile accessing, as well as the provision of a second warning if the first warning is ignored. The ‘910 Patent fails to specify the preference is not a parental guidance setting. However, Siddiqui [0024] and [0031-38] teach where users may set preferences that are used for substituting undesired content with content meeting their preferences, including audio content in order to enable viewers to control the playback of content according to the preferences.
Claims 53, 55, 57-64, 66, 68-72 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,785,294 B2 in view of Siddiqui (US 2003/0049014 A1). The ‘294 Patent discloses the same features as the ‘910 Patent above, and the analysis in view of the Siddiqui reference is similar as with the ‘910 Patent above. It is noted that the ‘910 Patent is subject to a Terminal Disclaimer with respect to the ‘294 Patent.
Claims 53, 55, 57-64, 66, 68-72 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,044,525 B2 in view of Siddiqui (US 2003/0049014 A1). The ‘525 Patent discloses the same features as the ‘910 and ‘294 Patents above, and the analysis in view of the Siddiqui reference is similar as above. It is noted that the ‘910 Patent is subject to a Terminal Disclaimer with respect to the ‘525 Patent.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 53, 57-59, 62-64, and 68-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schink (US 2014/0250447 A1) (of record, hereinafter Schink), in view of Siddiqui (US 2003/0049014 A1) (of record, hereinafter Siddiqui).
Regarding Claim 53, Schink discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
causing a device to output first audio-content, [Figs. 5A-D; 0070-72: user 502 (first user) views some content at user equipment device 300 in viewing area 506 in ‘private viewing mode’] wherein the first-audio content is associated with first metadata; [0009, 0072: content may comprise characteristic information such as rating, title, genre, or any other characteristic for which a comparison can be made (i.e., metadata)]
detecting a presence of a user inside an aural range of the output of the first content; [Figs. 5A-D, 7-10; 0075-76, 0089, 0127-129: system detects a second user (user 510) is approaching viewing area 506, where system detects whether user 510’s movement will be imminently entering the observable/viewing area 506 such that user equipment device 300 is observable; 0084: where system may ensure that audio associated with the media content is regulated so as to be effectively inaudible at various distances from the user equipment device 300 (i.e., to regulate content to be inaudible must implicitly necessitate determining if the user can hear the audio associated with the media)]
identifying a profile of the user; [0082, 0095: profiles of tracked users may be defined and maintained, where profile information may correspond to different thresholds, e.g., violent movie scenes may be okay for one user and not okay for another user] and
based at least in part on determining that the profile of the user does not match at least a portion of the first metadata of the first content currently being output:
identifying second content associated with second metadata that matches the profile of the user; [Figs. 5A-D, 7-10; 0077, 0082-84, 0097-103: where upon detecting that intrusion is imminent (i.e., second user has entered visual range), system may automatically or manually switch displayed media content to ‘safety content’ to hide the ‘private content’; 0082, 0095: profiles of tracked users may be defined and maintained, where profile information may correspond to different thresholds, e.g., violent movie scenes may be okay for one user and not okay for another user] and
causing the device to output the second audio content instead of the first audio content. [Figs. 5A-D, 7-10; 0077, 0082-84, 0097-103: where upon detecting that intrusion is imminent (i.e., second user has entered visual range), system may automatically or manually switch displayed media content to ‘safety content’ to hide the ‘private content’]
Schink fails to explicitly disclose identifying a preference indicated in a profile of the user, wherein the preference indicated in the profile of the user is not a parental guidance setting; and based at least in part on determining that the preference indicated in the profile of the user does not match at least a portion of the first metadata of the first content currently being output: identifying second content associated with second metadata that matches the preference indicated in the profile of the user. (Emphasis on the particular elements of the claims not explicitly disclosed by Schink – namely that the profiles include preferences that are used to determine conflicting content and matching substitute content).
Siddiqui, in analogous art, teaches identifying disclose identifying a preference indicated in a profile of the user, wherein the preference indicated in the profile of the user is not a parental guidance setting; [0012, 0018, 0024: a viewer may set their own preferences (i.e., not parental guidance settings) to indicate content viewing preferences, where such preferences may be stored in association with the user (i.e., a profile)] and
based at least in part on determining that the preference indicated in the profile of the user does not match at least a portion of the first metadata of the first content currently being output: identifying second content associated with second metadata that matches the preference indicated in the profile of the user. [Fig. 2; 0031-38: where during playback (such as the playback of Schink above) if the scene content exceeds the user preferences, alternative scenes/content may be selected that meet the viewer’s preferences, including substituting audio portions]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Schink with the teachings of Siddiqui to specify use of preferences in user profiles to detect mismatches between the preferences and content and select alternate content accordingly so as to enable viewers to control the playback of content according to their preferences. [Siddiqi – ABST; 0001, 0004-6]
Regarding Claim 57, Schink and Siddiqui disclose all of the limitations of Claim 53, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Schink and Siddiqui disclose fail to explicitly disclose determining the preference based at least in part on monitoring a plurality of historical interactions between the user and a plurality of content items, respectively.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify determining preferences based on historical interactions between the user and content items as it is readily known that one can infer preferences by the seeing the types of content a user consumes or chooses not to consume. For example, if a person listens to a lot of classical music but skips past a lot of rap music, it would be readily inferable that that person would likely prefer to avoid any other rap songs.
Regarding Claim 58, Schink and Siddiqui disclose all of the limitations of Claim 53, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Siddiqui discloses determining the preference based at least in part on receiving a user-interface input, via the device, to select the preference. [Siddiqui – 0012, 0018, 0024: a viewer may set their own preferences to indicate content viewing preferences, where such preferences may be stored in association with the user (i.e., a profile)]
Regarding Claim 59, Schink and Siddiqui disclose all of the limitations of Claim 53, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Schink discloses wherein detecting the presence of the user comprises: detecting that the user has entered the aural range of the output of the first content based at least in part on sensor data received from a sensor; [Schink – Figs. 5A-D, 7-10; 0075-76, 0089, 0127-129: system detects a second user (user 510) is approaching viewing area 506, where system detects whether user 510’s movement will be imminently entering the observable/viewing area 506 such that user equipment device 300 is observable; 0045-48, 0092-94: where various options to detect the other user may use various sensors and/or combinations of sensors (e.g., video cameras, audio detection, RFID, infrared, etc.); 0047, 0084: where system may ensure that audio associated with the media content is regulated so as to be effectively inaudible at various distances from the user equipment device 300 (i.e., the system must be able to determine if the detected user will be in some audible range of the first audio content to effect the audio control)]
determining an identity of the user; [Schink – 0045-46, 0095: system may track multiple users and associate each user with a particular profile] and
accessing the profile of the user by querying a database of profiles for an entry that matches the identity of the user. [Schink – 0088, 0095, 0107: system may track multiple users and associate each user with a particular profile (where some database from which profiles are accessed and maintained is implicitly disclosed – see MPEP 2144.01)]
Regarding Claim 62, Schink and Siddiqui disclose all of the limitations of Claim 53, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Schink disclose wherein detecting the presence of the user comprises: determining a plurality of physical characteristics of the user; and comparing the plurality of physical characteristics of the user to a plurality of corresponding characteristics respectively associated with a plurality of user profiles maintained by a database, wherein the plurality of physical characteristics include at least one of facial characteristics, height characteristics, weight characteristics, or voice characteristics. [Schink – 0005, 0045: users may be identified by any suitable biometric techniques such as facial recognition, body shape recognition, voice recognition, etc.]
Regarding Claim 63, Schink and Siddiqui disclose all of the limitations of Claim 53, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Schink discloses wherein detecting the presence of the user comprises querying a detected device associated with the user. [Schink – 0045-46, 0095: system may track multiple users and associate each user with a particular profile based on a recognized media device of the second user]
Regarding Claim 64, Claim 64 recites a system that performs the method of Claim 53. As such, Claim 64 is analyzed and rejected similarly as Claim 53 above, mutatis mutandis. (see also Clavin [Figs. 1-4] and [0026], [0050-63])
Regarding Claim 68, Schink and Siddiqui disclose all of the limitations of Claim 64, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 68 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 57 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 69, Schink and Siddiqui disclose all of the limitations of Claim 64, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 69 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 58 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 70, Schink and Siddiqui disclose all of the limitations of Claim 64, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 70 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 59 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Claim(s) 55 and 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schink and Siddiqui as applied to claim 53 and 64, respectively, above, and further in view of Bantz et al. (US 2002/0116629 A1) (of record, hereinafter Bantz).
Regarding Claim 55, Schink and Siddiqui disclose all of the limitations of Claim 53, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Schink and Siddiqui fail to explicitly disclose wherein the preference indicated in the profile of the user comprises a preference of the user to not hear audio content comprising one or more characteristics, and wherein the one or more characteristics corresponds to at least one of a topic, type, category, genre or theme of the audio content.
Bantz, in analogous art, teaches wherein the preference indicated in the profile of the user comprises a preference of the user to not hear audio content comprising one or more characteristics, and wherein the one or more characteristics corresponds to at least one of a topic, type, category, genre or theme of the audio content. [0043-44: user profile may indicate levels of objectionable content that the user wishes to avoid, which may indicate categories of objectionable content and the like, where each category may be associated with a different objectionable threshold]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Schink and Siddiqui with the teachings of Bantz to specify the preferences indicating characteristics of audio content the user would prefer to not hear as it is understood in the art that user profiles (such as those taught by Schink and Siddiqui) may identify specific types/categories of content, and associated thresholds, that a user may set so as to allow users to may set personalized criteria to block/avoid content that may be objectionable to that user. [Bantz – 0002-10, 44]
Regarding Claim 66, Schink and Siddiqui disclose all of the limitations of Claim 64, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 66 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 55 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Claim(s) 73 and 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schink and Siddiqui as applied to claim 53 and 64, respectively, above, and further in view of Shintani (US 2012/0281128 A1) (hereinafter Shintani).
Regarding Claim 73, Schink and Siddiqui disclose all of the limitations of Claim 53, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Schink and Siddiqui fail to explicitly disclose wherein the aural range is determined based at least in part on the ability of the user to hear the first content, and wherein the user’s ability to hear the first content is indicated by the profile of the user.
Shintani, in analogous art, teaches wherein the aural range is determined based at least in part on the ability of the user to hear the first content, and wherein the user’s ability to hear the first content is indicated by the profile of the user. [0017, 0021-24, 0027-28: based on identifying a user, a profile of the user may be retrieved, where such profile information may include information that a user is hearing impaired (such as the identification of user profile as Schink and Siddiqui above), where volume control (such as the aural volume adjustment of Schink above) may be controlled while taking into account a viewer’s particular hearing states]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Schink and Siddiqui with the teachings of Shintani to determine aural ranges according to the user’s ability to hear indicated in a profile in order tailor output of content according to the hearing requirements of the user. [Shintani – 0027-28]
Regarding Claim 74, Schink and Siddiqui disclose all of the limitations of Claim 64, which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 74 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 73 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 56 is allowed.
Claim 67 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 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 WILLIAM J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/WILLIAM J KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights