Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This is a reply to the application filed on 5/8/2025, in which, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 19, and 20 are independent.
When making claim amendments, the applicant is encouraged to consider the references in their entireties, including those portions that have not been cited by the examiner and their equivalents as they may most broadly and appropriately apply to any particular anticipated claim amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 5/8/2025 are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure filed on 5/8/2025 is accepted.
Double Patenting
1. 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).
2. 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).
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of US 11157919 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations recited in the independent claims 1, 19, and 20 of the present application and are broader than limitations recited in independent claims 1-2 of US 11157919 B2.
Claims 2-7, 10-18 of the present application are not patentably distinct from respective claims 1-2 of US 11157919 B2 because the claims recite substantially the same features.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17-18 of US 12327259 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations recited in the independent claims 1, 19, and 20 of the present application and are broader than limitations recited in independent claims 1, 17-18 of US 12327259 B2.
Claims 2-7, 10-18 of the present application are not patentably distinct from respective claims 1-18 of US 12327259 B2 because the claims recite substantially the same features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the steps of detecting the region of a user in order to determine which terms to offer that user for accessing content and two different sets of terms for the access of that content to users in two different regions, receiving the content to be offered access, providing the content provider a way to select the terms for the offered content including time period for access based on region and for a user to select content to access with available terms based on the region of the user, and providing the content to the user according to the identified criteria.
The limitations of defining access options, receiving content, and providing content according to the defined options, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by a human but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting processors, computer-readable memory, user interface, and a network, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human. For example, defining options based on region encompasses a human presenting another with a set of options verbally based on their residential status, and receiving and providing content according to the options encompasses manually lending a person a recording with a due date for its return. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by a human but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements of processors, computer-readable memory, user interface, and a network. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using processors, computer-readable memory, user interface, and a network to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 20020023010 A1 (hereinafter ‘Rittmaster’) in view of US 20100131895 A1 (hereinafter ‘Wohlert’).
Regarding claim 1, Rittmaster (US 20020023010 A1) teaches: A processor-implemented method of transmitting content from a multi-content-provider platform over a computer network (Rittmaster : ¶32: system wherein an information providing processor is coupled for communication to a plurality of recipient processors; ¶33: provider processor may provide information from any suitable source or by directing a recipient to a further site on the network at which the provided information is available (each further site may be a content provider); ¶5: example of distribution company contracted with a software company), comprising:
Rittmaster in combination with Wohlert (US 20100131895 A1) teaches: receiving a plurality of options for accessing a particular piece of content including a first subset of options associated with a first region and a second subset of options associated with a second region; (Rittmaster: ¶36, i.e., position, or geographic location or region, of the recipient processors generated using GPS; ¶58, i.e., provider may provide various degrees of limited access for one or more geographic regions, see examples. See also, Wohlert: Fig. 1, ¶38-¶55, media content selection categories/options are provided via a GUI interface wherein the categories/options are based on multiple criteria including region based on criteria)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Rittmaster to incorporate providing media content selection categories via GUI wherein the categories include region-based criteria as taught by Wohlert with the motivation to provide media content based on the user criteria (Wohlert: ¶17)
Rittmaster et al combination further teaches: automatically adjusting a particular one of the first subset of options based on activity of other users who have accessed the particular content, including activity of those other users before and after the other users accessed the particular content; (Rittmaster: ¶5, ¶33, ¶58, ¶70-¶72, ¶134. Wohlert: Fig. 1-3, ¶38-¶55)
receiving an identification of an option in the first subset from the user; and (Rittmaster: ¶5, ¶33, ¶58, ¶70-¶72, ¶134. Wohlert: Fig. 1-3, ¶38-¶55)
transmitting the particular content from the platform to the user via the network according to a criterion of the option that the user has identified. (Rittmaster: ¶¶75-76, i.e., server sends the requested product or service based on location information; ¶119: example of providing theater content; ¶132: example of content streams. Wohlert: Fig. 1-3, ¶38-¶55)
Claims 19-20 recite substantially the same features recited in claim 1 above and are rejected based on the rationale discussed in the rejection.
Regarding claim 6, Rittmaster et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving at the platform for distributing content provided by a plurality of unrelated content providers an upload of the particular piece of content from a content provider for distribution, the received particular content being stored in a computer-readable memory; (Rittmaster: ¶5, 33, ¶58, ¶134, 70)
Regarding claim 8, Rittmaster et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the particular one of the first subset of options is automatically adjusted based on data regarding indexed access of the particular content by other users. (Rittmaster: ¶5, ¶33, ¶58, ¶70-¶72, ¶134. Wohlert: Fig. 1-3, ¶38-¶55)
Regarding claim 9, Rittmaster et al combination teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: first indexing audience interaction activity on the website up to and including an access of the particular content; and (Rittmaster: ¶5, ¶33, ¶58, ¶70-¶72, ¶134. Wohlert: Fig. 1-3, ¶38-¶55) second indexing audience interaction on the website following an access of the particular content; wherein the automatic adjusting is based on the first and second indexing. (Rittmaster: ¶5, ¶33, ¶58, ¶70-¶72, ¶134. Wohlert: Fig. 1-3, ¶38-¶55)
Regarding claim 11, Rittmaster et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the particular content is transmitted from the platform to the physical location of the network for display on a graphical user interface of the user. (Rittmaster: ¶47. Wohlert: ¶17-¶19, ¶32)
Regarding claim 13, Rittmaster et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a second user associated with a third region is not provided with any options for accessing the particular content. (Rittmaster: ¶5, ¶33, ¶58, ¶70-¶72, ¶134. Wohlert: Fig. 1-3, ¶38-¶55)
Regarding claim 14, Rittmaster et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a first option in the first subset includes a time period of validity. (Rittmaster: ¶5, ¶33, ¶58, ¶70-¶72, ¶134. Wohlert: Fig. 1-3, ¶38-¶55)
Regarding claim 15, Rittmaster et al combination teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the time period of validity is preceded by a period where materials for the particular content, but not access to the particular content, are available in the first region. (Rittmaster: ¶5, ¶33, ¶58, ¶70-¶72, ¶134. Wohlert: Fig. 1-3, ¶38-¶55)
Regarding claim 16, Rittmaster et al combination teaches the method of claim 14, wherein a second user associated with the second region cannot access the particular content during the time period of validity. (Rittmaster: ¶5, ¶33, ¶58, ¶70-¶72, ¶134. Wohlert: Fig. 1-3, ¶38-¶55)
Regarding claim 17, Rittmaster et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein one of the first subset options is associated with a higher video resolution than is available on any of second subset option. (Rittmaster: ¶5, ¶33, ¶58, ¶70-¶72, ¶134. Wohlert: Fig. 1-3, ¶36-¶55)
Regarding claim 18, Rittmaster et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein one of the first subset options is associated with a different access type than is available on any of second subset option. (Rittmaster: ¶5, ¶33, ¶58, ¶70-¶72, ¶134. Wohlert: Fig. 1-3, ¶36-¶55)
Claim 2 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rittmaster in view of Wohlert in view of US 20080109362 A1 (hereinafter ‘Fransdonk’).
Regarding claim 2, Rittmaster et al combination teaches the method of claim 1. However, Rittmaster et al do not but in analogous art, Fransdonk (US 20080109362 A1) teaches: wherein the region associated with the user is automatically detected based on interaction of the user with a network, wherein automatically detecting comprises detecting a physical location of the network based on an IP address of the user. (¶0357: checking delivery address of a user authentication or copy-protected device located within an authorized geographic location; ¶278: content provider distributes content to a local content server of a content distributor; ¶0370: user interface which allows a content requester to select particular content and payment options)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Rittmaster to incorporate the teachings of Fransdonk because they are directed towards providing access options for video content to viewers. Although Rittmaster does not specifically contemplate using IP address to detect region and does not specifically describe a user interface, Fransdonk teaches that using IP address to limit content distribution is known in the art and gives an example of a user interface for purchasing content. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the GPS location detection of Rittmaster could be implemented using IP address instead with predictable results. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a user interface similar to that of Fransdonk may be presented to a user of Rittmaster. Doing so would be the application of known techniques to similar devices to yield equivalent results
Claim 3, 5 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rittmaster in view of Wohlert in view of US 20070130010 A1 (hereinafter ‘Pokonosky’) in view of US 20110126246 A1 (hereinafter ‘Thomas’).
Regarding claim 3, Rittmaster et al combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein options from which the first subset and the second subset are provided are defined by steps comprising: providing an item user interface for defining access options for an individual content item that includes controls for selection, on an item by item basis: individual content items, one of a plurality of regions, and an option type for defining selectable access options for the particular content and other content items, (Rittmaster: ¶5, ¶58, ¶70, ¶134. See also, Pokonosky: ¶36, content provider may access fillable forms through a website interface to complete a media kit and rules, including defining target audience)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Rittmaster et al to incorporate the teachings of Pokonosky because they are directed towards providing access options for video content to viewers. Although Rittmaster does not specifically contemplate an interface for content providers, Pokonosky teaches that it is known in the art to provide a web interface for a content provider to define rules for distribution. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the content providers of Rittmaster may be provided with similar interfaces to define region-based access options with predictable results. Doing so would provide the advantage of integration by using the same network and web server system for allowing content providers to provide content and access rules and users to access content.
Ritmaster et al in combination with Thomas (US 20110126246 A1) teaches: the option type indicating a time period for access that begins upon the platform transmitting the particular content to the user via the network. (Thomas: ¶5-¶10, i.e., the viewing time window starts when the content is delivered to the user device)
Before the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Rittmaster et al to include viewing time window associated with the content that starts when the content is delivered to the user device as taught by Thomas with the motivation to provide management of on demand media content (Thomas: ¶2-¶10)
Regarding claim 5, Rittmaster et al combination teaches the method of claim 3, wherein options from which the first subset and the second subset are provided are defined by steps further comprising: receiving at the platform a first selectable access option definition from the content provider via the item user interface defining first criteria for accessing the particular content in a first region in the plurality of regions, the first criteria including a first option type and the first region where the first option definition is valid; (Rittmaster: ¶5, 33, ¶58, ¶134, 70. See also, Pokonosky: ¶36) receiving at the platform a second selectable access option definition from the content provider via the item user interface defining second criteria for accessing the particular content in a second region in the plurality of regions, the second criteria including a second option type that differs from the first option type and the second region where the second option definition is valid; (Rittmaster: ¶5, 33, ¶58, ¶134, 70. See also, Pokonosky: ¶36) wherein first and second selectable access options are provided on a per item basis by a plurality of different content providers associated with different pieces of content. (Rittmaster: ¶5, 33, ¶58, ¶134, 70. See also, Pokonosky: ¶36)
Claim 4 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rittmaster in view of Wohlert in view of of Pokonosky in view of Thomas in view of Fransdonk.
Regarding claim 4, Rittmaster et al combination teaches the method of claim 3, wherein for each of a plurality of content items for each of a plurality of regions, one or more access options are specifically selected using the item user interface. (Fransdonk: ¶357: checking delivery address of a user authentication or copy-protected device located within an authorized geographic location; ¶370, user interface which allows a content requester to select particular content and payment options)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Rittmaster to incorporate the teachings of Fransdonk because they are directed towards providing access options for video content to viewers. Although Rittmaster does not specifically contemplate using IP address to detect region and does not specifically describe a user interface, Fransdonk teaches that using IP address to limit content distribution is known in the art and gives an example of a user interface for purchasing content. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the GPS location detection of Rittmaster could be implemented using IP address instead with predictable results. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a user interface similar to that of Fransdonk may be presented to a user of Rittmaster. Doing so would be the application of known techniques to similar devices to yield equivalent results.
Claim 7, 10 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rittmaster in view of Wohlert in view of US 8387081 B2 (hereinafter ‘Beyabani’).
Regarding claim 7, Rittmaster et al combination teaches the method of claim 1. However, Rittmaster does not but in analogous art Beybani teaches: wherein the particular one of the first subset of options is automatically adjusted without human intervention. (col. 8, ll. 48-58: description of real-time behavior; col. 8, line 66 - col. 9, line 5; col. 9, ll. 15-25: real-time behavior may be used as criteria for price change) (col. 7, ll. 35-44: criteria for triggering dynamic PPV pricing discounts received; col. 8, line 66 - col. 9, line 5: criteria applied to individual customers, subsets, or all customers; col. 9, ll. 6-7: dynamic pricing is established).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Rittmaster et al to incorporate the teachings of Beyabani because they are directed towards providing access options for video content to viewers. Although Rittmaster et al do not specifically contemplate collecting or using real-time data to adjust the access options by the content provider, Beyabani teaches doing so for television pay-per-view (PPV) events. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the use of real-time data to adjust pricing could be applicable to content distribution systems like those of Rittmaster et al as well. Doing so would provide the advantage and capability of providing dynamic pricing for video content, as taught by Beyabani (col. 1, ll. 53-59).
Regarding claim 10, Rittmaster et al combination teaches the method of claim 1. However, Rittmaster does not but in analogous art Beybani teaches: wherein said automatically adjusting is further based on the user's account history regarding access of content other than the particular content. (Bayabani: col. 2:51 to col. 3:65, col. 5:1-20, col. 7, ll. 35-60, i.e., tracking viewing and purchase histories of users including groups and clusters of users for adjusting programs and purchase options; col. 8, ll. 48-58: description of real-time behavior; col. 8, line 66 - col. 9, line 5; col. 9, ll. 15-25: real-time behavior may be used as criteria for price change) (col. 7, ll. 35-44: criteria for triggering dynamic PPV pricing discounts received; col. 8, line 66 - col. 9, line 5: criteria applied to individual customers, subsets, or all customers; col. 9, ll. 6-7: dynamic pricing is established)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Rittmaster et al to incorporate the teachings of Beyabani because they are directed towards providing access options for video content to viewers. Although Rittmaster et al do not specifically contemplate collecting or using real-time data to adjust the access options by the content provider, Beyabani teaches doing so for television pay-per-view (PPV) events. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the use of real-time data to adjust pricing could be applicable to content distribution systems like those of Rittmaster et al as well. Doing so would provide the advantage and capability of providing dynamic pricing for video content, as taught by Beyabani (col. 1, ll. 53-59).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rittmaster in view of Wohlert in view of US 20060203106 A1 (hereinafter ‘Lawrence’).
Regarding claim 12, Rittmaster et al combination teaches the method of claim 1. Rittmaster et al do not but in analogous art, Lawrence (US 20060203106 A1) teaches: wherein a signal is transmitted from the platform to the user that disables access to the particular content at the conclusion of the time period for accessassociated with the identified option. (Lawrence: ¶35-¶37, i.e., disabling signal is received when media access period expires to disable access to the media)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Rittmaster to include using a disable signal to disable access to media when the media usage period expires as taught by Lawrence with the motivation to disable access to the media (Lawrence: ¶35-¶37)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ZAIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-5995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 5:30AM-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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/SYED A ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights