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 .
This communication is in response to Application 19/211,622 filed on 19 May 2025, and is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/816,588, filed August 1, 2022, which is a divisional of U.S. Application No. 16/746,546, filed January 17, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 11,405,485, issued August 2, 2022, entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING AND DISTRIBUTING INFORMATIONAL CONTENT ACROSS DISPARATE SYSTEMS,” which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 62/793,660, filed January 17, 2019, entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING AND DISTRIBUTING INFORMATIONAL CONTENT ACROSS DISPARATE SYSTEMS”.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-14 of US 11,405,485 and claims 1-20 of US 12,309,240. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variants of each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8-9, 11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Rogers (US 2003/0160734).
Regarding claim 1, Rogers teaches a content management system comprising:
a plurality of displays configured to display a data set in communication with a network (Rogers fig.1 and [0027] provides “A web server 101 is utilized to store display images 105 that may be used as advertising signage image displays. These display images 105 are ultimately transmitted to end user display devices for use in providing advertising signage images. These end users may be personal computers 105-107, as well as stand-alone display devices 111, 121”);
a server in communication with the network (Rogers fig.1 and [0027] provides “A web server 101 is utilized to store display images 105 that may be used as advertising signage image displays. These display images 105 are ultimately transmitted to end user display devices for use in providing advertising signage images. These end users may be personal computers 105-107, as well as stand-alone display devices 111, 121”), the server configured to:
receive a request to display a modified data set (Rogers [0043] provides “The server computing system 301 contains a display device management module 314 to provide end users 106 a mechanism to create, modify and delete an update schedule for each display computing system 250. This module 314 provides the end user 106 to modify a database of information describing the multi-media data that’s to be displayed upon each display computing system 250 at various times during each day”; ([0043] further provides “An Internet interface module 313 allows processing modules within the web server computing system 301 to communicate with client computers over the Internet 100”, wherein this communication provides for transmitting requests);
identify one or more characteristics of the modified data set (Rogers [0049] provides “The display device management module 314 provides end users 106 a mechanism to create, modify and delete, an update schedule for each display computing system 250”; [0055] provides “The module 346 allows end users to retrieve, view, modify, create, and delete this information. This information is needed to determine what sets of display data and scheduling information are to be uploaded to a particular device. The device display data database 347 contains all of the sets of display data and scheduling information that are used throughout the server computing system”);
identify a distribution protocol for the plurality of displays (Rogers [0050] provides “The end user authenticate module 341 determines if an end user 106 is permitted to access and to modify one or more parts of the display data and scheduling information associated with one or more display computing system 250. End users 106 access the server computing system using a web browser, such as NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR or MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER, to make these changes. The identity of users attempting to make modifications needs to be authenticated as well as determine whether a particular user is authorized to make the current modification”, wherein “current modification” can be interpreted to provide that there are levels of authorizations which are related to different levels of modification, thereby providing for a hierarchy);
determine a transmission period for transmitting the modified data set based on the identified one or more characteristics and the identified distribution protocol (Rogers [0049] provides “The display device management module 314 provides end users 106 a mechanism to create, modify and delete, an update schedule for each display computing system 250”; [0055] provides “The module 346 allows end users to retrieve, view, modify, create, and delete this information. This information is needed to determine what sets of display data and scheduling information are to be uploaded to a particular device. The device display data database 347 contains all of the sets of display data and scheduling information that are used throughout the server computing system”, wherein transmission would be done in a manner to uphold the scheduling);
cause transmission of the modified data set to the plurality of displays via the network during the determined transmission period (Rogers [0049] provides “The display device management module 314 provides end users 106 a mechanism to create, modify and delete, an update schedule for each display computing system 250”; [0055] provides “The module 346 allows end users to retrieve, view, modify, create, and delete this information. This information is needed to determine what sets of display data and scheduling information are to be uploaded to a particular device. The device display data database 347 contains all of the sets of display data and scheduling information that are used throughout the server computing system”);
and cause the one or more displays to display the modified data set (Rogers [0005] provides “…delivering promotional and advertisement related images to remote display devices. One aspect of the present invention is a system for electronically displaying advertising images on remote display devices”; [0028] provides “The display devices 111, 121 periodically communicate with the web server 111, such as once a day, to receive an updated display data set that is to be used until the next time the device 111, 121 communicates with the web server 101”).
Regarding claim 8, the system of claim 1, wherein each of the network comprises one or more end computing devices, each of the end computing devices in communication with one of the plurality of displays (Rogers fig.1).
Regarding claim 9, the system of claim 8, wherein the distribution protocol comprises a status of the one or more end computing devices and wherein the server is configured to identify a transmission period based on the status of the one or more end computing devices (Rogers [0046-0047] provides “The update scheduling module 323 communicates with display computing systems 250 to provide these systems with the display data needed for the time period between a current contact by a particular display computing system and its corresponding next scheduled communications time slot. In one embodiment in which a display computing system 250 contacts the server computing system once a day, this module 323 is responsible for providing the display computing system with all display data needed for use during the next day. This data would include any multi-media data to be output as well as any scheduling information if the display data is desired to change throughout the day. If the display data and/or the scheduling information is not changed from one day to the next, the module 323 may not need to actually transmit any information”; Rogers [0051] provides “The asset status module 342 provides end users with access to the identity and status of the display data and scheduling information to be displayed on one or more display computing systems. A set of display data and its scheduling information is assigned to a particular display device, which is referred to as an asset. The status of a particular set of display data and its scheduling information as well as the status of the display computing system is useful to end users. This module 342 provides access to this information”).
Regarding claim 11, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 1, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 18, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 8, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 19, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 9, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
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 2-4, 10, 12-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (US 2003/0160734), in view of Provencher et al (US 2013/0031128).
Regarding claim 2, Rogers has taught the system of claim 1, but Rogers does not explicitly teach wherein the characteristic of the modified data set comprises a file type or file size. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Provencher teaches wherein the characteristic of the modified data set comprises a file type or file size (Provencher [0018] provides “The plurality of digital sign files 105A-G can include any type of digital file suitable for providing either a static or dynamic media output (e.g., image, video, audio, or any combination thereof) on a display device. Example image file types can include, but are not limited to: JPEG, EXIF, TIFF, PNG, GIF, BMP, CGS, SVG, PNS, and JPS file formats. Example video file types can include, but are not limited to: MPEG, MOV, WMV, and RM file formats. Some or all of the plurality of digital sign files 105A-G may have associated keywords, tags, metadata, or the like. Such metadata can include product type or product brand name data describing the products to which the digital sign file applies. For example, metadata attached to a digital sign file containing Trek bicycle related content may indicate the "product" as a "bicycle" and the "brand" as "Trek"”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention would be motivated identify the characteristics and parameters of the modified data set as taught by Provencher in the system taught by Rogers so that the digital sign file delivered to each of the one or more display devices can therefore be optimized for the particular parameters (e.g., type, size, resolution, and orientation) of the display device (Provencher [0021]).
Regarding claim 3, the system of claim 1, wherein the distribution protocol comprises one or more properties of the plurality of displays (Provencher [0021] provides “In some instances, the digital sign file 105 delivered to each of the one or more display devices 120A-C can therefore be optimized for the particular parameters (e.g., type, size, resolution, and orientation) of the display device 120”). Motivation provided with reference to claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, the system of claim 1, wherein the distribution protocol comprises one or more characteristics of the network (Provencher [0023] provides “The repository 110 can include any one or more data storage location or locations suitable for the storage and retrieval of the plurality of digital sign files 105A-G. The repository 110 can be wholly or partially disposed remote from the computing device 115. In at least some embodiments, the repository 110 can be accessed via the internet with the computing device 115 using an internet protocol (e.g., TCP/IP) to establish a connection to the repository 110. In other embodiments, the repository 110 can include a proprietary storage location such as a server accessible for free or for a fee via a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), or a worldwide area network (WWAN, i.e., the internet)”). Motivation provided with reference to claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, the system of claim 1, wherein the server is further configured to determine a feasibility or level of effort for displaying the modified data set based on the one or more characteristics of the modified data set and the identified distribution protocol (Provencher [0021] provides “A particular version of a digital sign file 105 can be selected either manually by a user familiar with the display parameters of each display device 120, or automatically based upon identifying electronic data stored within each display device 120, for example the extended display identification data (EDID) stored within each of the display devices 120. In some instances, the digital sign file 105 delivered to each of the one or more display devices 120A-C can therefore be optimized for the particular parameters (e.g., type, size, resolution, and orientation) of the display device 120”). Motivation to combine provided with reference to claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 2, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 13, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 3, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 14, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 4, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 20, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 10, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (US 2003/0160734), in view of Provencher et al (US 2013/0031128), further in view of Carlson et al (US 2009/0207731).
Regarding claim 5, Rogers-Provencher has taught the system of claim 4, but Rogers-Provencher does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more characteristics of the network comprises resource availability for components of the network. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Carlson teaches wherein the one or more characteristics of the network comprises resource availability for components of the network (Carlson [0075] provides “…when the bandwidth limit is reached in receiving data within a particular time interval, the CM transmits a signal to the router 48 to cease further data forwarding for the remainder of the time interval. Thereafter, whereas any data received by a CMTS is relayed on to the CM as the data is received, any additional data received by the router 48 during the remainder of this time interval is stored for later transmission in a buffer up to a threshold limit”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention would be motivated to use the feature of not transmitting instantaneously but performing look ahead scheduling of transmission as taught by Carlson in the system taught by Rogers-Provencher, in order to increase transmission efficiency (Carlson [0011]).
Regarding claim 6, the system of claim 5, wherein the server is configured to determine the transmission period based on the resource availability for the components of the network (Carlson [0075] provides “…when the bandwidth limit is reached in receiving data within a particular time interval, the CM transmits a signal to the router 48 to cease further data forwarding for the remainder of the time interval. Thereafter, whereas any data received by a CMTS is relayed on to the CM as the data is received, any additional data received by the router 48 during the remainder of this time interval is stored for later transmission in a buffer up to a threshold limit”). Motivation to combine provided with reference to claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, the system of claim 5, wherein the server is configured to determine the transmission period based on historical data associated with the characteristics of the network (Carlson [0192] provides “The traffic on each channel and the predicted requirements of each user are monitored at the CMTS 2900 (FIG. 29) in order to maintain a history of the recently available capacity, packet loss rate, and packet delay and jitter. A recent history of the predicted bandwidth requirements of each user is maintained, for example, in the prediction cache 2906”). Motivation to combine provided with reference to claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 5, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 16, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 6, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Regarding claim 17, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 7, and the same rationale of rejection applies where applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Peshkar US 2018/0061361.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISHRAT RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-5372. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Tonia L Dollinger can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/I.R/ Examiner, Art Unit 2459
/TONIA L DOLLINGER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights