DETAILED ACTION
Amendment submitted June 22, 2026 has been considered by examiner. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to arguments towards Claim 1, the Applicant states that the cited art does not disclose “a portion of the recording, wherein the portion was recorded by the user device prior to receiving the user request, and indicates the time point," and "the user-provided data." Specifically, the Applicant seems to only imply that a combination of references was improper. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Mallinson [0023] discloses recording media for a specified amount of time at particular times. This occurs “prior to receiving the user request.” Gavade [0019] further discloses providing and associating user-provided data (i.e. commentary) with content. The reason to combine Mallinson and Gavade is that Mallinson discloses functionality of “recorded by the user device prior to receiving the user request.” However, Gavade is not explicit as to when such a recording was made.
As to a combination being proper, please see the Graham v Deere factual inquiries:
(A) Determining the scope and content of the prior art:
Both Mallinson and Gavalde deal with capturing audio and using its supplemental content.
(B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art:
Mallinson discloses a functionality of “recorded by the user device prior to receiving the user request.” However, Gavade is not explicit as to when such a recording was made.
(C) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art:
One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, would modify Mallinson with Gavade in order to let a user create supplemental content for capture media.
As to arguments towards Claim 7, the Applicant states that the cited art does not disclose an amended feature, “selecting, based on the user input, a second time point in the content item prior to the portion of the recording, wherein the user-provided data is associated with the content item at the second time point.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
However, Gavade [0051-0053] discloses providing commentary for different points throughout a recording. That would include selecting another time point for a user to provide commentary (i.e. user-provided data). The user is not limited as to when to provide such commentary, including prior to a particular time point.
As such, Mallinson and Gavade discloses the above argued features.
No further specific arguments are provided.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,115,722 and claims 1-24 of US Patent 12,328,480. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘722 and the ‘480 Patents anticipate the instant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11-13, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mallinson (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0246495) in view of Gavade et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0066594).
Claims 1, 9 and 17: Mallinson discloses a method, a device and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising:
recording, by a user device, audio of a content item being output by a content device [0023]. [See at least capturing at least audio information.]
Mallinson alone does not explicitly disclose the rest of the limitations.
However, Mallinson and Gavade disclose:
receiving, by the user device, user-provided data and a user request to associate the user-provided data with a time point in the content item [Gavade: 0019]. [See at least associating user commentary with time stamps.]
sending, based on the user request, an upload request to associate the user-provided data with the time point in the content item [Gavade:0055]. [See at least uploading “the transcribed text of commentary.”],
wherein the upload request comprises:
a portion of the recording, wherein the portion was recorded by the user device prior to receiving the user request, and indicates the time point [Mallinson:0023]. [The audio was captured prior to a user request to associate user data with the content.]
the user-provided data [Gavade: 0019].
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Mallinson with Gavade. One would have been motivated to do so in order to let a user create supplemental content for capture media.
Claims 2 and 12: Mallinson as modified discloses the method and the device of Claims 1 and 9 above, and Mallinson further discloses wherein the user device comprises a mobile phone, the method further comprising: recording, via the mobile phone within a proximity of the content device and based on the content item being output by the content device, the audio of the content item being output by the content device [0022]. [See at least using a cell phone to capture audio within a proximity to at least a television.]
Claims 3 and 11: Mallinson as modified discloses the method and device of Claims 1 and 9 above, and Mallinson further discloses receiving, by the user device, user input indicating a request to identify the content item being output by the content device, wherein recording the audio of the content item being output by the content device is based on receiving the user input [0024, 0029]. [See at least “a recognition module or other such component, for identifying content…”]
Claims 5 and 13: Mallinson as modified discloses the method and device of Claims 1 and 9 above, and Mallinson further discloses wherein recording the audio of the content item being output by the content device is further based on a user launching a metadata upload application on the user device [0050].
Claims 7, 16 and 20: Mallinson as modified discloses the method, the device and the medium of Claims 1, 9 and 17 above, but Mallinson alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the recording the audio of the content item is based on user input associated with the user device, and wherein the time point is a first time point, the method further comprising selecting, based on the user input, a second time point in the content item prior to the portion of the recording, wherein the user-provided data is associated with the content item at the second time point.
However, Gavade [0051-0053] discloses providing commentary for different points throughout a recording. That would include selecting another time point for a user to provide commentary (i.e. user-provided data). The user is not limited as to when to provide such commentary, including prior to a particular time point.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Mallinson with Gavade. One would have been motivated to do so in order to let a user create supplemental content for captured media at any particular point the user prefers.
Claims 4, 15 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mallinson (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0246495) in view of Gavade et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0066594) and further in view of Gao et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0068691).
Claims 4, 15 and 19: Mallinson as modified discloses the method, the device and the medium of Claims 1, 9 and 17 above, but Mallinson alone does not explicitly disclose sending, based on sending the upload request to associate the user-provided data with the time point in the content item, a message to the content device, wherein the message causes the content item to be paused for a period of time.
However, Gavade [0055] discloses uploading particular data, and Gao [0134] discloses pausing a content stream via user input.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Mallinson with Gavade and Gao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to pause a stream when a user decides it is necessary.
Claims 6-8, 10, 14 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mallinson (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0246495) in view of Gavade et al (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0066594) and further in view of Ibasco et al (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0089309).
Claims 6 and 10: Mallinson as modified discloses the method and device of Claims 1 and 9 above, but Mallinson alone does not explicitly disclose determining, for the first content item, a first time period to record an audio output by the content device, wherein the first time period comprises a minimum duration sufficient to identify the content item; and determining, for a second content item, a second time period to record an audio output by the content device, wherein the second time period comprises a minimum duration sufficient to identify the content item different from the first time period.
However, Mallinson [0023] discloses recording audio and Ibasco [0043-0045] discloses using particular audio for any amount of audio samples to identify content. Each sample has to be a minimum amount of time to identify content.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Mallinson with Ibasco. One would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to identify content based on particular audio.
Claims 8, 14 and 18: Mallinson as modified discloses the method, the device and the medium of Claims 1, 9 and 17 above, but Mallinson alone does not explicitly disclose wherein recording the audio of the content item comprises a plurality of audio samples of the content item and wherein the user device stores the plurality of audio samples based on a first in first out storage implementation.
However, Ibasco [0047, 0049] discloses storing audio samples in “a First-In-First-Out queue system.”
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Mallinson with Ibasco. One would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to identify content based on particular audio in the order it was received.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights