DETAILED ACTION
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
On pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant argues that Gupta fails to disclose “determining that playing of the second portion has reached the first timepoint” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner respectively disagrees because Gupta teaches a system for providing a multiscreen experience for parallel playback of time shifted live stream content. Specifically, Gupta teaches that determining a disruption has occurred in a live video and in response to determining that the period of disruption has elapsed, storing the disrupted content segment of live video that a user missed during the period of disruption. A PIP catch-up window is displayed including the catch-up video displaying the disrupted content segment for simultaneous display with the live video. In response to detecting that the catch-up video has finished displaying the stored disrupted content segment, discontinuing the generated PIP catch-up window ([0007], [0020]-[0021]). Additionally, Gupta also discloses that
“In some embodiments, the step of generating the PIP catch-up window further comprises playing the catchup video at a catch-up playback speed equal to or greater than a playing speed of the live video. For example, a faster play speed of the catch-up video enables the media guidance application to catchup with the live point of the live media stream quicker so that the user can concentrate on the live window.” ([0017])
“In some embodiments, the media guidance application may play back the catch-up segment at a playback rate faster than a rate at which the live video is playing. For example, as depicted in FIG. 3 element 304, the playback rate may be 4× (e.g., four times faster than the standard play speed that is the playback speed of the live video). It should be noted that another suitable playback rate may be used, e.g., 1.4×, 1.2×, or another suitable playback rate, e.g., at a playback rate preferred by the user. The faster play speed enables the media guidance application to catchup with the live point of the live media stream or media asset.” ([0105], Fig. 3)
In other words, Gupta teaches playing back the catch-up video in PIP window 302 at an increased playback speed as compared to the live video playing back on display screen 300. The increased playback speed causes the catch-up video to reach the live point of the media stream quicker. When the catch-up video reaches the live point of the live media stream, the PIP catch-up window is discontinued such that the user can concentrate on the live window. Therefore, Gupta teaches “determining that playing of the second portion has reached the first timepoint”.
On page 8 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant argues that the Double Patenting rejections be reconsidered and withdrawn in view of the amendments.
In response, the Examiner notes that the amendments do not overcome the double patenting rejections. Although the claims include slight differences, the claimed features are not patentably distinguishable. Therefore, the double patenting rejection of the claims is maintained.
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 1-8, 10-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-9, 11, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,328,469. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For instance, not the following similarities between instant application claim 1 and US Pat. 12,328,469 claim 1.
Instant Application Claim 1
US Pat. 12,328,469 Claim 1
A computer-implemented method comprising: generating, for display at a device, a first portion of a media asset corresponding to a first timepoint in the media asset;
A computer-implemented method comprising: …identifying a first portion of the media asset to be provided for display based on the first request, wherein the first portion of the media asset corresponds to a first timepoint of the media asset;
identifying a second portion of the media asset corresponding to a second timepoint of the media asset, wherein the second timepoint occurs prior to the first timepoint;
identifying a second portion of the media asset corresponding to a second timepoint of the media asset, wherein the second timepoint occurs prior to the first timepoint of the media asset;
based, at least in part, on the identifying, generating, for display on the device, a multi-view interface comprising a first window and a second window, wherein the first portion of the media asset is displayed in the first window, and the second portion of the media asset is displayed in the second window;
based on receiving the second request, providing for simultaneous display a first window at a first region of a display and a second window at a second region of the display, wherein the first window displays the first portion of the media asset and the second window displays the second portion of the media asset, wherein the second portion of the media asset corresponds to video content corresponding to the second timepoint of the media asset;
determining that playing of the second portion has reached the first timepoint; and based, at least in part, on the determining, causing modification of the multi-view interface by causing the device to cease display of the second portion in the second window.
determining, based on a current timepoint of the second portion of the media asset, to modify the second window of the display by determining that the second portion of the media asset has concluded or by determining that the current timepoint of the video content of the second portion of the media asset corresponds to the first timepoint of the first portion of the media asset; and modifying the second window of the display by removing the second window from the display.
Since claim 1 in the instant application is a broader recitation of claim 1 in Pat. 12,328,469 it would have been obvious to modify claim 1 in Pat. 12,328,469 to get claim 1 in the instant application.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 1.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 5.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 6.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 2.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 3.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 8.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 1.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 7.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 9.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 11.
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 13.
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 13.
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 5.
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 6.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 2.
Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 3.
Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 8.
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 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, 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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10, 13-14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panchaksharaiah et al. (US Pub. 2017/0332036) in view of Gupta et al. (US Pub. 2022/0174347), herein referenced as Panchaksharaiah and Gupta, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Panchaksharaiah discloses “A computer-implemented method comprising: generating, for display at a device, a first portion of a media asset corresponding to a first timepoint in the media asset ([0004]-[0006], [0038], [0109], [0132], Figs. 2-3, 6, i.e., a user selects media content for display, such as live media content. The system also determines a user missed a portion of a live video and may wish to catch-up on content that was missed, thus determines an event prior to the current time point);
identifying a second portion of the media asset corresponding to a second timepoint of the media asset, wherein the second timepoint occurs prior to the first timepoint ([0038]-[0039], [0049], [0051], i.e., media guidance application may retrieve catch-up audio-visual media, such as a highlight reel corresponding to previously broadcasted events);
based, at least in part, on the identifying, generating, for display on the device, a multi-view interface comprising a first window and a second window, wherein the first portion of the media asset is displayed in the first window, and the second portion of the media asset is displayed in the second window…” ([0004], [0051]-[0052], [0091]-[0093], Figs. 2-3, i.e., in response to a user input, the media guidance application may generate for display a picture-in-picture window comprising catch-up audio-visual media 204 overlaying live audio-visual media 206).
Panchaksharaiah fails to explicitly disclose determining that playing of the second portion has reached the first timepoint; and based, at least in part, on the determining, causing modification of the multi-view interface by causing the device to cease display of the second portion in the second window.
Gupta teaches the technique of determining that playing of the second portion has reached the first timepoint; and based, at least in part, on the determining, causing modification of the multi-view interface by causing the device to cease display of the second portion in the second window ([0007], [0017], [0020]-[0021], [0105], Fig. 3, i.e., detecting that the catch-up video has finished displaying the stored disrupted content segment and, in response to detecting that the catch-up video has finished displaying the stored disrupted content segment, discontinuing the generated PIP catch-up window. Additionally, generating the PIP catch-up window further comprises playing the catchup video at a catch-up playback speed equal to or greater than a playing speed of the live video. For example, a faster play speed of the catch-up video enables the media guidance application to catchup with the live point of the live media stream quicker so that the user can concentrate on the live window).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of determining that playing of the second portion has reached the first timepoint; and based, at least in part, on the determining, causing modification of the multi-view interface by causing the device to cease display of the second portion in the second window as taught by Gupta, to improve the media guidance application system of Panchaksharaiah for the predictable result of discontinuing the display of the PIP window so that it doesn’t persistently interfere with the primary video thus providing a more enjoyable viewing experience.
Regarding claim 2, Panchaksharaiah discloses “receiving, while performing the generating for display of the first portion of the media asset, a request to present the multi-view interface, wherein the second portion is identified, based, at least in part, on receiving the request.” ([0004], [0051]-[0052], [0091]-[0093], Figs. 2-3, i.e., in response to a user input, the media guidance application may generate for display a picture-in-picture window comprising catch-up audio-visual media 204 overlaying live audio-visual media 206).
Regarding claim 7, Panchaksharaiah discloses “identifying a third portion of the media asset corresponding to a third timepoint of the media asset occurring prior to the first timepoint of the media asset, wherein modifying the multi-view interface further comprises causing the device to display the third portion in the second window after causing the device to cease the display of the second portion.” ([0038]-[0039], [0049], [0088]-[0092], i.e., Figs. 2-3, i.e., identifying important events and presenting the events in a picture-in-picture window).
Regarding claim 8, Panchaksharaiah fails to disclose “wherein modifying the multi-view interface further comprises causing the device to cease the display of the second window.
Gupta teaches the technique of providing wherein modifying the multi-view interface further comprises causing the device to cease the display of the second window ([0007], [0020]-[0021], Fig. 3, i.e., detecting that the catch-up video has finished displaying the stored disrupted content segment and, in response to detecting that the catch-up video has finished displaying the stored disrupted content segment, discontinuing the generated PIP catch-up window). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein modifying the multi-view interface further comprises causing the device to cease the display of the second window as taught by Gupta, to improve the media guidance application system of Panchaksharaiah for the predictable result of discontinuing the display of the PIP window so that it doesn’t persistently interfere with the primary video thus providing a more enjoyable viewing experience.
Regarding claim 10, Panchaksharaiah discloses “wherein: the first timepoint corresponds to a live portion of the media asset; the second timepoint corresponds to a beginning of the media asset; and generating, for simultaneous display at the device, the first portion of the media asset and the second portion of the media asset comprises causing simultaneous playing of: the live portion of the media asset in the first window; and the beginning of the media asset at the device in the second window.” ([0006], [0016], [0038]-[0039], [0049], [0051]-[0052], Figs 2-3, i.e., generate for simultaneous display on a first display device live audio-visual media and catch-up audio-visual media, where the catch-up audio-visual media corresponds to a previously broadcast segment of the live audio-visual media. Media guidance application may buffer the missed portion of the football game and may allow the user to play back a buffered portion of the football game at a time after it was originally rendered by the media guidance application).
Regarding claim 13, Panchaksharaiah discloses “A computer-implemented system comprising: input/output circuitry ([0117], Figs. 7-8) configured to receive requests to display, at a device, a media asset; control circuitry configured to: generate, for display at the device, a first portion of the media asset corresponding to a first timepoint in the media asset ([0004]-[0006], [0038], [0109], [0132], Figs. 2-3, 6, i.e., a user selects media content for display, such as live media content. The system also determines a user missed a portion of a live video and may wish to catch-up on content that was missed, thus determines an event prior to the current time point);
identify a second portion of the media asset corresponding to a second timepoint of the media asset, wherein the second timepoint occurs prior to the first timepoint ([0038]-[0039], [0049], [0051], i.e., media guidance application may retrieve catch-up audio-visual media, such as a highlight reel corresponding to previously broadcasted events);
based, at least in part, on the identifying, generate, for display on the device, a multi-view interface comprising a first window and a second window, wherein the first portion of the media asset is displayed in the first window, and the second portion of the media asset is displayed in the second window…” ([0004], [0051]-[0052], [0091]-[0093], Figs. 2-3, i.e., in response to a user input, the media guidance application may generate for display a picture-in-picture window comprising catch-up audio-visual media 204 overlaying live audio-visual media 206).
Panchaksharaiah fails to explicitly disclose determining that playing of the second portion has reached the first timepoint; and based, at least in part, on the determining, cause modification of the multi-view interface by causing the device to cease display of the second portion in the second window.
Gupta teaches the technique of determining that playing of the second portion has reached the first timepoint; and based, at least in part, on the determining, cause modification of the multi-view interface by causing the device to cease display of the second portion in the second window ([0007], [0017], [0020]-[0021], [0105], Fig. 3, i.e., detecting that the catch-up video has finished displaying the stored disrupted content segment and, in response to detecting that the catch-up video has finished displaying the stored disrupted content segment, discontinuing the generated PIP catch-up window. Additionally, generating the PIP catch-up window further comprises playing the catchup video at a catch-up playback speed equal to or greater than a playing speed of the live video. For example, a faster play speed of the catch-up video enables the media guidance application to catchup with the live point of the live media stream quicker so that the user can concentrate on the live window).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of determining that playing of the second portion has reached the first timepoint; and based, at least in part, on the determining, cause modification of the multi-view interface by causing the device to cease display of the second portion in the second window as taught by Gupta, to improve the media guidance application system of Panchaksharaiah for the predictable result of discontinuing the display of the PIP window so that it doesn’t persistently interfere with the primary video thus providing a more enjoyable viewing experience.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 3-6, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panchaksharaiah in view of Gupta and in view of Nishikawa et al. (US Pub. 2014/0105575) and in further view of Cheng et al. (US Pub. 2013/0282747), herein referenced as Nishikawa and Cheng, respectively.
Regarding claim 3, Panchaksharaiah discloses wherein the second portion is displayed in the second window ([0004], [0051]-[0052], [0091]-[0093], Figs. 2-3, i.e., in response to a user input, the media guidance application may generate for display a picture-in-picture window comprising catch-up audio-visual media 204 overlaying live audio-visual media 206).
The combination fails to disclose generating, for display at the device, a portion identifier for the second portion.
Nishikawa teaches the technique of generating, for display at the device, a portion identifier for the second portion ([0017], [0045]-[0046], Figs. 5, 8, i.e., chapter marks are displayed that may be used to instantly jump to a particular scene or location within a video presentation). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of generating, for display at the device, a portion identifier for the second portion as taught by Nishikawa, to improve the media guidance application system of Panchaksharaiah for the predictable result of quickly and easily navigating to particular scenes or portions of recorded or cached video content ([0006]).
The combination still fails to disclose wherein the portion identifier provides a natural language description of the second portion and includes a video frame from the portion.
Cheng teaches the technique of providing wherein the portion identifier provides a natural language description of the second portion and includes a video frame from the portion ([0005], [0009], [0033]-[0034], Figs. 7-8, i.e., video search assistant may identify a video likely depicting the complex event of interest and present to a user a natural language description of one or more segments of the video that relate to the complex event). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the portion identifier provides a natural language description of the second portion and includes a video frame from the portion as taught by Cheng, to improve the media guidance application system of Panchaksharaiah for the predictable result of reducing manual processing and providing consistent descriptions ([0003]).
Therefore, the combination discloses “generating, for display at the device, a portion identifier for the second portion, wherein the second portion is displayed in the second window based, at least in part, on receiving a selection of the portion identifier, and wherein the portion identifier provides a natural language description of the second portion and includes a video frame from the portion”.
Regarding claim 4, the combination fails to disclose “wherein the portion identifier for the second portion is included in a plurality of portion identifiers which are generated for simultaneous display at the device with the first portion of the media asset, prior to receiving the selection of the portion identifier for the second portion, and wherein the plurality of portion identifiers correspond to a plurality of portions, respectively, of the media asset having occurred prior to the first timepoint, the plurality of portion identifiers providing a plurality of natural language descriptions of the plurality of portions.”
Nishikawa teaches the technique of providing wherein the portion identifier for the second portion is included in a plurality of portion identifiers which are generated for simultaneous display at the device with the first portion of the media asset, prior to receiving the selection of the portion identifier for the second portion, and wherein the plurality of portion identifiers correspond to a plurality of portions, respectively, of the media asset having occurred prior to the first timepoint ([0017], [0041]-[0046], Figs. 5, 7-8, i.e., chapter marks are displayed that may be used to instantly jump to a particular scene or location within a video presentation, wherein in the thumbnail view 800 is displayed overlaying the video content screen 705).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the portion identifier for the second portion is included in a plurality of portion identifiers which are generated for simultaneous display at the device with the first portion of the media asset, prior to receiving the selection of the portion identifier for the second portion, and wherein the plurality of portion identifiers correspond to a plurality of portions, respectively, of the media asset having occurred prior to the first timepoint as taught by Nishikawa, to improve the media guidance application system of Panchaksharaiah for the predictable result of quickly and easily navigating to particular scenes or portions of recorded or cached video content ([0006]).
The combination still fails to disclose the plurality of portion identifiers providing a plurality of natural language descriptions of the plurality of portions.
Cheng teaches the technique of providing the plurality of portion identifiers providing a plurality of natural language descriptions of the plurality of portions ([0005], [0009], [0033]-[0034], Figs. 7-8, i.e., video search assistant may identify a video likely depicting the complex event of interest and present to a user a natural language description of one or more segments of the video that relate to the complex event). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing the plurality of portion identifiers providing a plurality of natural language descriptions of the plurality of portions as taught by Cheng, to improve the media guidance application system of Panchaksharaiah for the predictable result of reducing manual processing and providing consistent descriptions ([0003]).
Regarding claim 5, Panchaksharaiah discloses “accessing metadata of the plurality of portions of the media asset; generating, based on the metadata and for each of the plurality of portions of the media asset, an importance ranking, wherein generating, for the display at the device, the plurality of portion identifiers further comprises causing display of the plurality of portion identifiers at respective positions based, at least in part, on the respective importance rankings.” ([0003], [0008]-[0009], [0011], [0051], [0072], Figs. 2-3, i.e., determining the importance of events based on user profiles and weighing preferences when events have competing importance).
Regarding claim 6, Panchaksharaiah discloses “wherein the metadata is generated based on at least one of analyzing audio of the second portion of the media asset, analyzing video of the second portion of the media asset, or analyzing social media content related to the second portion of the media asset.” ([0007], [0055], [0059], [0087], i.e., the media guidance application may use a video processing algorithm to monitor objects in the live audio-visual media and in the catch-up audio-visual media. Additionally, the media guidance application may specifically filter for sounds known to correlate with important events).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panchaksharaiah in view of Gupta and in further view of Jackson, JR. et al. (US Pub. 2023/0118824), herein referenced as Jackson.
Regarding claim 11, the combination fails to disclose “wherein the first portion of the media asset and the second portion of the media asset are provided for display based on a single dynamic manifest file.”
Jackson teaches the technique of providing wherein the first portion of the media asset and the second portion of the media asset are provided for display based on a single dynamic manifest file ([0008]-[0009], [0038], i.e., presenting content while the content is currently being distributed at a first distribution time point within the content, transmitting a request for contextual content prior to the first distribution time point. Further still, the content server 104 may be configured to provide the client terminal 106 with one or more manifest data files which include information related to the encoded media content). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the first portion of the media asset and the second portion of the media asset are provided for display based on a single dynamic manifest file as taught by Jackson, to improve the media guidance application system of Panchaksharaiah for the predictable result of providing a location where each encoding data file is available ([0038]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination fails to disclose “wherein the first portion of the media asset is provided for display based on a first manifest file and the second portion of the media asset is provided for display based on a second manifest file.”
Jackson teaches the technique of providing wherein the first portion of the media asset is provided for display based on a first manifest file and the second portion of the media asset is provided for display based on a second manifest file ([0008]-[0009], [0038], i.e., presenting content while the content is currently being distributed at a first distribution time point within the content, transmitting a request for contextual content prior to the first distribution time point. Further still, the content server 104 may be configured to provide the client terminal 106 with one or more manifest data files which include information related to the encoded media content). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the first portion of the media asset is provided for display based on a first manifest file and the second portion of the media asset is provided for display based on a second manifest file as taught by Jackson, to improve the media guidance application system of Panchaksharaiah for the predictable result of providing a location where each encoding data file is available ([0038]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22 are 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
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 Alexander Q Huerta whose telephone number is (571)270-3582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/ALEXANDER Q HUERTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 September 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights