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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-19 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.
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 2-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,589,096. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are broader than the claims in the ‘096 Patent (see In re Goodman).
Referring to claims 2-10 of the instant application, see claims 1-8 of the ‘096 Patent.
Referring to claims 11-19 of the instant application, see claims 9-16 of the ‘096 Patent.
Claims 2-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,803. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are broader than the claims in the ‘803 Patent.
Referring to claims 2-10 of the instant application, see claims 1-10 of the ‘803 Patent.
Referring to claims 11-19 of the instant application, see claims 11-20 of the ‘803 Patent.
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 2-6 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0054847) in view of Perrufel et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0352751) in further view of Garfinkle (U.S. Patent No. 5,400,402) in further view of Newell (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0017831).
Referring to claim 2, Schultz discloses receiving, at a server from a device of an account holder (see Paragraphs 0023 and 0027), a request to grant temporary access of a digital gateway to a user, wherein the request specifies a set of access rules for the temporary access (see Paragraph 0016 for the application server 130 receiving the request and Paragraph 0024 for access only being temporarily permitted).
Schultz also discloses based at least in part on the request, generating, by the server, a temporary access token, wherein the temporary access token defines at least one expiration condition and is associated with at least one content limitation rule defining a subset of content available to the user (see Paragraph 0024 for generating a token that identifies a time period for which the access is granted and a level of access).
Schultz also discloses transmitting, from the server to a device of the user, the temporary access token (see Paragraph 0024 for sending the temporary access token to a user).
Schultz also discloses granting, by the server, the temporary access to the digital gateway for the user via the temporary access token (see Paragraph 0024 and Paragraph 0052 for the user requesting access using the temporary access token by further authenticating the user at an administrative server 150 and Paragraphs 0028-0029 for providing access to the service provider network 160), wherein access to content within the digital gateway is restricted based on the at least one content limitation rule associated with the temporary access token (see Paragraph 0024 for generating a token that identifies a time period for which the access is granted and a level of access).
Schultz also discloses automatically expiring the temporary access token after a pre-set period (see Paragraphs 0024 and 0053 for the access token expiring after the per-set time period identified in the temporary access token has expired).
Schultz fails to teach automatically revoking access, by the server, the temporary access upon a satisfaction of the at least one expiration condition defined by the temporary access token.
Perrufel discloses automatically revoking access, by the server, the temporary access upon a satisfaction of the at least one expiration condition defined by the temporary access token (see Paragraph 0063).
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 the temporary access token granting system, as taught by Schultz, using the token revocation functionality, as taught by Perrufel, for the purpose of enabling the access to a wireless network to be limited only to the users present in the establishment offering the service, without it being necessary to input a code (see Paragraph 0005 of Perrufel).
Schultz and Perrufel fail to teach that the expiration condition is specified in the request to grant temporary access of the digital gateway to the user and transmitting, from the server to a second device of the user distinct from the first device of the account holder, the temporary access token.
Garfinkle discloses that an expiration condition is specified in the request to grant temporary access of the digital gateway to the user (see Column 3, Lines 40-42).
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 the request sent from the user device, as taught by Schultz and Perrufel, using the expiration information request functionality, as taught by Garfinkle, for the purpose of providing an improved system for controlling the use of video programs that have been downloaded from a central station and stored at a customer’s site (see Column 1, Lines 7-11 of Garfinkle).
Schultz, Perrufel and Garfinkle fail to teach transmitting, from the server to a second device of the user distinct from the first device of the account holder, the temporary access token.
Newell discloses transmitting, from the server to a second device of the user distinct from the first device of the account holder, the temporary access token (see steps 350-360 in Figure 3).
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 the request sent from the user device, as taught by Schultz, Perrufel and Garfinkle, using the expiration information request functionality, as taught by Newell, for the purpose of sharing of purchased pay-per-view events across multiple set-top boxes (see Paragraph 0001 of Newell).
Referring to claim 3, Schultz discloses that each content item of the subset of content comprises at least one portion of metadata in common (see Paragraph 0023 for the content including context information used for verification purposes).
Referring to claim 4, Schultz discloses that the at least one expiration condition comprises content access duration (see Paragraph 0024).
Referring to claim 5, Schultz and Perrufel disclose all of the limitations of claim 2, but fails to teach that the expiration condition comprises a content access count.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that an access token can comprise an expiration condition that comprises a content access count.
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 an expiration condition for accessing content, as taught by Schultz and Perrufel, using the content access count condition, as taught by the Examiner’s statement of Official Notice, for the purpose limiting the number of times a user can access the content.
Referring to claim 6, Schultz discloses that the granting, by the server, the temporary access to the digital gateway for the user further comprises verifying an identity of the user (see Paragraph 0029).
Referring to claim 4, Schultz discloses that a user request temporary access to the over-the-top content platform and, in response to receiving the request, the user’s identity is verified before the temporary access token is assigned to the user (see Paragraphs 0017 and 0052 for first authenticating a user’s device, thereby allowing a user to access the user device and then if the user has been authenticated, allowing the user to receive the temporary access token).
Referring to claim 5, Schultz discloses that the pre-set period is a time period (see Paragraph 0024).
Referring to claim 6, Schultz discloses that the request is initiated via providing a password (see Paragraph 0037).
Referring to claims 11-15, see the rejection of claims 1-6, respectively.
Claims 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0054847) in view of Perrufel et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0352751) in further view of Garfinkle (U.S. Patent No. 5,400,402) in further view of Newell (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0017831) in further view of Brown et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0051755).
Referring to claim 7, Schultz, Perrufel, Garfinkle and Newell disclose all of the limitations of claim 2, as well as Schultz granting temporary access to content (see the rejection of claim 2), but fails to teach the limitations of claim 7.
Brown discloses generating a unique link to the digital gateway for the user, detecting a user interaction with the unique link and that the granting, by the server, the access is based at least in part on the detecting the user interaction with the unique link (see Paragraphs 0025-0026).
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 the temporary access system, as taught by Schultz, Perrufel, Garfinkle and Newell, using the unique link functionality, as taught by Brown, for the purpose of allowing a user to transfer playback from one device to another without being logged into the same user account on both devices (see the bottom of Paragraph 0003 of Brown).
Claim 8 corresponds to claim 7, where Brown further teaches that generating the unique link further comprises generating a quick response code at the device of the account holder and detecting the interaction further comprises scanning the quick response code with the device of the user (see Paragraph 0019).
Referring to claims 16-17, see the rejection of claims
Claims 9-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0054847) in view of Perrufel et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0352751) in further view of Garfinkle (U.S. Patent No. 5,400,402) in further view of Newell (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0017831) in further view of Costello et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0006982).
Referring to claim 9, Schultz, Perrufel, Garfinkle and Newell disclose all of the limitations of claim 2, but fails to teach granting access to an associated chatroom for a pre-set period.
Costello discloses granting access to an associated chatroom for a pre-set period (see Figures 2-4 and Paragraphs 0023-0038).
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 the temporary access token granting system, as taught by Schultz, Perrufel, Garfinkle and Newell, using the chatroom functionality, as taught by Perrufel, for the purpose of granting access to a chatroom based on an access level (see Paragraph 0008 of Costello).
Claim 10 corresponds to claim 9, wherein Costello discloses automatically putting both the device of the account holder and the device of the user in the chatroom when both devices are concurrently accessing the content within the digital gateway (see Figures 2-4 for a user at a first computing device allowing a user at a second device to join the chatroom that both users are using and further allows additional computing device to join the chatroom based on the moderator granting permission).
Referring to claims 18-19, see the rejection of claims 9-10, respectively.
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 JASON P SALCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7301. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am-10:00pm M-F (Flex Schedule).
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/Jason Salce/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Jason P Salce
Senior Examiner
Art Unit 2421
September 29, 2026
