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 .
1. This action is responsive to the application filed on 05/27/2025.
2. Claim 1 is canceled.
3. Claims 2-21 are pending.
4. Claims 2-21 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/27/2025, 09/29/2025, and 11/26/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. 11,936,702 and over claims 2-21 of Patent No. 12,341,836. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both claiming common subject matter, of geo-location-based media streaming.
The Examiner notes that parent applications (now Patent No. 11,936,702 and 12,341,836) and the instant application are directed towards patentability indistinct variations of the same inventive concept, which is providing presentation of content of a media stream of a broadcast source based on the location of the user. The Examiner made the double patenting rejection determination based on the fact that the parent application has claims that have overall appearances with basically the same design characteristics and the differences between both parent application and current application are considered patentably insufficient when they are obvious to a person skilled in the art. While the parent application and current application have different scopes, the Examiner found that the difference in scope is minor and patentably indistinct between the claims being compared.
Thus, the applied nonstatutory double patenting rejection applies in the current application because the claims are directed to the same inventive concept but with different appearances or differing scope that are patentability indistinct from each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Piyush Agarwal et al (WO 2020/040778 A1), hereinafter “Agarwal”.
Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 9, Aggarwal discloses a method and a system comprising:
one or more processors (Agarwal, Paragraph 0037, one or more processors);
and a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Agarwal, Paragraph 0037, one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing computer instructions executable by one or more processors to perform any of the methods described herein), cause the one or more processors to perform operations including:
receiving an identification of a geographical area (Agarwal, Paragraph 0051, client device includes location sensor that determines the location of the client device. Paragraph 0052, client device provides the current location of the user as determined by the location sensor. Paragraph 0054, remote computer receives reported user location and radio station information from the client device);
identifying a set of broadcast sources (Agarwal, Paragraph 0052, providing radio station information based on geographic area. Paragraph 0053, as vehicle enters the transmission range of a first station tower, the antenna of client device receives radio station metadata from first tower. Paragraph 0060, providing radio station information to client device based on one or more locations associated with the client device);
generating a graphical user interface including a representation of the geographical area and a set of icons corresponding to the set of broadcast sources, wherein the set of icons include a graphical depiction of content currently being presented by a media stream of the set of broadcast sources (Agarwal, Paragraph 0060, providing the subset of stations that include the frequencies of the stations associated with different towers (i.e., different coverage areas) to the client device. The subset of radio stations are then used by one or more applications to render content to the user via an interface. Paragraph 0066, application outputs information related to one or more of the selected radio station mappings to provide the user with the radio station);
receiving a selection of a particular icon of the set of icons (Agarwal, Paragraphs 0064-0066, application outputs information related to one or more of the selected radio station mappings to provide the user with the radio station to be selected);
and facilitating a presentation of the content currently being presented by the media stream of the broadcast source corresponding to the particular icon (Agarwal, Paragraphs 0060, 0062, and 0066, providing to the user via one or more applications the subset of stations so that the user may obtain the media).
Regarding Claim 3, Aggarwal discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the media stream is a radio broadcast (Agarwal, Paragraph 0049, radio stations).
Regarding Claim 4, Aggarwal discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
filtering the set of broadcast sources based on a language associated with the set of broadcast sources (Agarwal, Paragraph 0065, locations are utilized to provide radio station suggestions to the user while traveling along a trajectory. Based on radio stations being received by the antenna, the radio stream processor determines an attribute (e.g., genre) based on the metadata included with the broadcast signal. Based on the location and attribute the device identifies one or more mappings in the local station database that are proximate to the current location and that have the same or similar attribute to the current radio station).
Regarding Claim 5, Aggarwal discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
filtering the set of broadcast sources based on historical media streams requested by a user device (Agarwal, Paragraph 0061, radio station selection criteria include listener preference that are generated based on identifying stations that the user has listened to in the past, songs that the user has listened to, and/or other indications of listener preferences of the user. Paragraph 0062, subset of stations is tailored to current location of the user and the radio station selection criteria. Paragraph 0064, local station database includes radio stations that have been previously provided, that are within range).
Regarding Claim 7, Aggarwal discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the media stream is received over an Internet Protocol connection (Agarwal, Paragraph 0048, client device communicates via Internet, among other communication protocols. Paragraph 0050, antenna receives metadata via the radio station signal and provides the metadata to radio stream processor. Paragraph 0083, audio stream includes a radio station that the user is tuned to via an internet-based radio station that the user is currently streaming via one or more devices).
Regarding Claim 8, Aggarwal discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the media stream is presented by an in- vehicle entertainment system (Agarwal, Paragraph 0005, radio signal information is received from a client device, wherein the client device includes a vehicle computer that is coupled with a terrestrial radio system. Paragraph 0048, client device may be a mobile phone computing device, a tablet computing device, a computing device of a vehicle of the user (e.g., an in-vehicle communications system, an in-vehicle entertainment system, an in-vehicle navigation system), and/or a wearable apparatus of the user that includes a computing device).
Regarding Claim 10, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 11, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 12, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 14, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 15, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 8 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 carries similar limitations as discussed with regards to Claim 1 and Claim 8 above and therefore is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 17, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 3 and Claim 10 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 18, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 4 and Claim 11 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 19, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 5 and Claim 12 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 21, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 8 and Claim 15 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal in view of Edward Drake (US 20160373817 A1), hereinafter “Drake”.
Regarding Claim 6, Aggarwal discloses the method of claim 2.
However, Fulanito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the geographical area is fictional.
Drake, from the same or similar field of endeavor, discloses wherein the geographical area is fictional (Drake, Paragraph 0039, user interface in which a fictional location is used in order for the user to access streaming content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aggarwal in view of Drake in order to further modify the method of radio station recommendations from the teachings of Aggarwal with the method of generating dynamic temporal versions of content from the teachings of Drake.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the user will have a customized streaming presentation based on different categories selected by having different user preferences (Drake – Paragraphs 0003, 0017, 0022, 0032, and 0039).
Regarding Claim 13, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 20, this claimed limitation is the same as the limitation addressed to Claim 6 and Claim 13 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All the references listed on 892 are related to the subject matter of geo-location-based media streaming.
Some of the prior art include:
US 20160329977 A1, which discloses a method of terrestrial radio switch manager for smart cellular streaming
US 20160246792 A1, which discloses a method of content playlist based on user location.
US 20110066743 A1, which discloses a method of providing event-based media streams.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER O GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am to 4 pm EST.
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, Jorge L. Ortiz-Criado can be reached at (571)272-7624. 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.
/JAVIER O GUZMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights