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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 09/17/2026 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed on 09/17/2026, the amendments have been considered. Claims 2, 9, and 16 have been amended. Claims 4, 11, and 18 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-21 are pending for examination, the rejection cited as stated below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/17/2026, with respect to the Double Patenting Rejection of Claims 2-21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Double Patenting Rejection of Claims 2-21 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2, 9, and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 2, 3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piyush Agarwal et al (WO 2020/040778 A1), hereinafter “Agarwal” in view of Gregory I. Gewickey et al (US 20220074756 A1), hereinafter “Gewickey”.
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).
However, Aggarwal fails to explicitly disclose receiving a selection of a particular icon of the set second of icons; and facilitating a presentation of the content currently being presented by the media stream of the broadcast source corresponding to the particular icon.
Gewickey, from the same or similar field of endeavor, discloses receiving a selection of a particular icon of the set second of icons (Gewickey, Paragraph 0098, identify an applicable media component set for a passenger and location. For example, based on one or more records (e.g., in a passenger profile) stating the passenger prefers English-language content, lives in Encino, and abhors violent content, the server may filter out identifiers for non-pertinent content components from its library of all available content components. generate the plan based on the trip origin, destination, a preferred destination, and other criteria. Paragraph 0112, using machine-learning to predict an affinity of a user of the player device based at least in part on user profile data and the trip event information);
and facilitating a presentation of the content currently being presented by the media stream of the broadcast source corresponding to the particular icon (Gewickey, Paragraph 0065, user interface for providing user control for controlling output of digital media content in response to travel information. Paragraph 0098, server may generate a baseline (e.g., initial) assembly plan based on the travel information, which may be contained in the data structure. The server may generate the plan based on the trip origin, destination, a preferred destination, and other criteria. The plan may comprise a sequence of media segments with or without other media components, arranged in a list or other useful data structure).
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 Gewickey in order to further modify the method of radio station recommendations from the teachings of Aggarwal with the method of real-time route configuring of entertainment content from the teachings of Gewickey.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the user will be able to enjoy a better experience if there is a customized travel event (Gewickey – Paragraphs 0003-0004, 0097-0098).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Aggarwal and Gewickey disclose the method of claim 2 above, where Aggarwal further discloses wherein the media stream is a radio broadcast (Agarwal, Paragraph 0049, radio stations).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Aggarwal and Gewickey disclose the method of claim 2 above, where Aggarwal further discloses 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, the combination of Aggarwal and Gewickey disclose the method of claim 2 above, where Aggarwal further discloses 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, the combination of Aggarwal and Gewickey disclose the method of claim 2 above, where Aggarwal further discloses 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 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 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.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal and in view of Gewickey, as applied to claims 2, 9, and 16 above, and in further view of Edward Drake (US 20160373817 A1), hereinafter “Drake”.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Aggarwal and Gewickey disclose the method of claim 2.
However, the combination of Aggarwal and Gewickey 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 Gewickey and in further view of Drake in order to further modify the method of radio station recommendations from the teachings of Aggarwal and the method of real-time route configuring of entertainment content from the teachings of Gewickey 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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