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 .
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, 6-7, 10, 13-14 and 17-18, 20, 22-23 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 14, 16-17, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,378. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are anticipated by the parent patent claims.
Present Claims
1. A method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, a request for a portion of a content item from a user device;
determining, based on at least one user parameter, a plurality of graphical symbols to associate with the at least the portion of the content item; and
causing presentation of at least a portion of the plurality of graphical symbols associated with the at least the portion of the content item at the user device.
U.S. Patent No. 12,363,378
1. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor- executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
determine contextual information associated with a portion of a content item;
determine, based on the contextual information, and from a plurality of graphical elements, a portion of the plurality of graphical elements associated with the portion of the content item;
cause presentation of the portion of the plurality of graphical elements;
receive a selection of a graphical element of the plurality of graphical elements; and
cause, at a user device, presentation of the graphical element.
Claims 10 and 18 are anticipated by claims 14 and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,378.
Claims 6, 17, 22 are anticipated by the additional features of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,378.
Claims 7, 13-14, and 23 are anticipated by the additional features of claims 1, 14, 27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,378.
Claim 20 is anticipated by the additional features of claims 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,378.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,003,811. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are anticipated by the parent patent claims.
Present Claims
1. A method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, a request for a portion of a content item from a user device;
determining, based on at least one user parameter, a plurality of graphical symbols to associate with the at least the portion of the content item; and
causing presentation of at least a portion of the plurality of graphical symbols associated with the at least the portion of the content item at the user device.
U.S. Patent No. 12,003,811
1. A method comprising:
Determining by a computing device, a plurality of associated user devices requesting a content item;
Determining contextual information associated with a portion of the content item;
Determining, based on the contextual information, a plurality of graphical symbols associated with the portion of the content item; and
Causing presentation of at least a portion of the plurality of graphical symbols at the plurality of associated user devices.
Claims 10 and 18 are anticipated by the additional features of claims 9 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,003,811.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,516,539. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are anticipated by the parent patent claims.
Present claims
1. A method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, a request for a portion of a content item from a user device;
determining, based on at least one user parameter, a plurality of graphical symbols to associate with the at least the portion of the content item; and
causing presentation of at least a portion of the plurality of graphical symbols associated with the at least the portion of the content item at the user device.
U.S. Patent No. 11,516,539
1. A method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, contextual information associated with a portion of a content item;
determining, based on the contextual information, and from a plurality of graphical elements, a portion of the plurality of graphical elements associated with the portion of the content item;
causing presentation of the portion of the plurality of graphical elements;
receiving a selection of a graphical element of the plurality of graphical elements; and
causing, at a user device, presentation of the graphical element.
Claims 10 and 18 are anticipated by the additional features of claims 11 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,516,539.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, 15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hays (US 2013/0007809 A1) in view of Kaliamoorthi et al. (US 2017/0195735).
Regarding claim 1, Hays discloses a method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, a request for a portion of a content item from a user device (See Fig 6 accessing media content, [0080] viewer accessing media content via command);
determining, based on at least one user parameter, a plurality of graphical symbols to associate with the at least the portion of the content item (See Fig 8 movie detected with previously established viewer environment preference options the symbols including the alphabetic symbols; See [0083] [0099]. The accessed media content is associated to a previously stored viewing environment preference by comparing media content associations of the previously stored viewing environment preference and the accessed media guidance data, retrieved user profile or a combination.); and
Hays does not explicitly disclose causing presentation of at least a portion of the plurality of graphical symbols associated with the at least the portion of the content item at the user device.
Kaliamoorthi discloses causing presentation of at least a portion of the plurality of graphical symbols associated with the at least the portion of the content item at the user device (See [0095] context specific options may represent movies when the display present a movie; selecting a particular media stream resulting in sub-context group of specific control options [0096]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Hays with the known methods of Kaliamoorthi predictably resulting in causing presentation of at least a portion of the plurality of graphical symbols associated with the at least the portion of the content item at the user device by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of contextually relevant graphic control options as suggested by Kaliamoorthi.
Regarding claim 2, Hays and Kaliamoorthi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the request for the portion of the content item comprises receiving the request for the portion of the content item from the user device (See Hays See Fig 6 accessing media content, [0080] viewer accessing media content via command; and Kaliamoorthi Fig 5B).
Regarding claim 3, Hays and Kalimoorthi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing presentation of the at least the portion of the plurality of graphical symbols at the user device comprises sending, to the user device, the at least the portion of the plurality of graphical symbols (See [0136] remote server transmitting webpages across a network).
Regarding claim 4, Hays and Kalimoorthi the method of claim 1, further comprising determining contextual information associated with the portion of the content item, where determining the plurality of graphical symbols is further based on the contextual information associated with the portion of the content item (See [0095] context specific options may represent movies when the display present a movie; selecting a particular media stream resulting in sub-context group of specific control options [0096]).
Regarding claim 8, Hays and Kalimoorthi further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the user device comprises one or more of: a television, a media player, or a mobile device (See Hays [0002] [0024]).
Regarding claim 9, Hays and Kalimoorthi further disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, from the user device, the at least one user parameter (See Hays [0033]).
Regarding claim 10, Hays discloses a method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, a request for a portion of a content item from a plurality of user devices (See Fig 6 accessing media content, [0080] viewer accessing media content via command);
determining, based on a first user parameter associated with a first user device of the plurality of user devices, a first plurality of graphical symbols to be associated with the the portion of the content item (See Fig 8 movie detected with previously established viewer environment preference options the symbols including the alphabetic symbols; See [0083] [0099]. The accessed media content is associated to a previously stored viewing environment preference by comparing media content associations of the previously stored viewing environment preference and the accessed media guidance data, retrieved user profile or a combination.);
determining, based on a second user parameter associated with a second user device of the plurality of user devices, a second plurality of graphical symbols to be associated with the portion of the content item (a second user using a second device at a different time, See Fig 8 movie detected with previously established viewer environment preference options the symbols including the alphabetic symbols; See [0083] [0099]. The accessed media content is associated to a previously stored viewing environment preference by comparing media content associations of the previously stored viewing environment preference and the accessed media guidance data, retrieved user profile or a combination.); and
Hays does not explicitly disclose causing presentation of at least a portion of the first plurality of graphical symbols at the first user device; and causing presentation of at least a portion of the second plurality of graphical symbols at the second user device.
Kaliamoorthi discloses causing presentation of at least a portion of the plurality of graphical symbols associated with the at least the portion of the content item at the user device (See [0095] context specific options may represent movies when the display present a movie; selecting a particular media stream resulting in sub-context group of specific control options [0096]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Hays with the known methods of Kaliamoorthi predictably resulting in causing presentation of at least a portion of the first plurality of graphical symbols at the first user device; and causing presentation of at least a portion of the second plurality of graphical symbols at the second user device by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of contextually relevant graphic control options as suggested by Kaliamoorthi.
Regarding claim 11, Hays and Kaliamoorthi further disclose the method of claim 10, further comprising: determining the first user parameter associated with the first user of the first user device; and determining the second user parameter associated with the second user of the second user device (See [0101] a plurality of viewing environments).
Regarding claim 12, Hays and Kaliamoorthi disclose the method of claim 10, wherein determining the request for the portion of the content item from the plurality of user devices comprises receiving, from each of the plurality of user devices, a separate request for the portion of the content item (See [0114-0115] a second user).
Regarding claim 15, Hays and Kaliamoorthi disclose the method of claim 10, further comprising determining contextual information associated with the portion of the content item, where determining the first plurality of graphical symbols and the second plurality of graphical symbols is further based on the contextual information associated with the portion of the content item (See Kaliamoorthi [0095] context specific options may represent movies when the display present a movie; selecting a particular media stream resulting in sub-context group of specific control options [0096]).
Regarding claim 18, Hays discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a request for a portion of a content item from a user device (See Fig 6 accessing media content, [0080] viewer accessing media content via command);
determining, based on at least one user parameter associated with the user device; and determining based on the at least one user parameter associated with the portion of the content item, a plurality of graphical symbols to associate with the portion of the content items(See Fig 8 movie detected with previously established viewer environment preference options the symbols including the alphabetic symbols; See [0083] [0099]. The accessed media content is associated to a previously stored viewing environment preference by comparing media content associations of the previously stored viewing environment preference and the accessed media guidance data, retrieved user profile or a combination.); and
Hays does not explicitly disclose determining contextual information associated with the portion of the content item; causing presentation of at least a portion of the plurality of graphical symbols associated with the at least the portion of the content item at the user device based on a user parameter and the contextual information.
Kaliamoorthi discloses causing presentation of at least a portion of the plurality of graphical symbols associated with the at least the portion of the content item at the user device (See [0095] context specific options may represent movies when the display present a movie; selecting a particular media stream resulting in sub-context group of specific control options [0096]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Hays with the known methods of Kaliamoorthi predictably resulting in determining contextual information associated with the portion of the content item; causing presentation of at least a portion of the plurality of graphical symbols associated with the at least the portion of the content item at the user device based on a user parameter and the contextual information by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of contextually relevant graphic control options as suggested by Kaliamoorthi.
Regarding claim 19, Hays and Kaliamoorthi disclose the method of claim 18, wherein determining the at least one user parameter comprises receiving the at least one user parameter with the request for the portion of the content item (See Kaliamoorthi [0095] context specific options may represent movies when the display present a movie; selecting a particular media stream resulting in sub-context group of specific control options [0096]).
Claim(s) 5, 16, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hays (US 2013/0007809 A1) in view of Kaliamoorthi et al. (US 2017/0195735) in view of Sprigg et al. (US 2013/0040629 A1).
Regarding claim 5, 16 and 21, Hays and Kaliamoorthi disclose the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one user parameter comprises at least one of: an age of the user; a gender of the user, or a location of the user.
Sprigg discloses that it was known for an age and gender profile affect context criteria of the selected community-based settings for a child's age and gender.
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination with the known methods of Sprigg predictably resulting in at least one user parameter comprises at least one of: an age of the user; a gender of the user, or a location of the user by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of controlling a viewing environment for a child as suggested by Sprigg.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 13-14, 17, 20, and 22-23 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest, alone or in combination, all of the features of dependent claims 6-7, 13-14, 17, 20, and 22-23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO ALCON whose telephone number is (571)270-5668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-7:00pm.
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.
FERNANDO . ALCON
Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/FERNANDO ALCON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights