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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claims 9-13 should be changed from “The media of claim 8” to “The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8”
-Claim 14 should be changed from “The media of claim 1” to “The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22 of conflicting Patent No. 12,368,917 B2 and claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13-15, 16, 19, 20 of conflicting Patent No. 11,877,024 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the pending application is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of the conflicting Patent No. 12,368,917 B2 and 11,877,024 B2. That is, claim 1 of the pending application is anticipated by claim 1 of the conflicting application. Also the corresponding dependent claims are identically the same. Look below for example.
Table 1 illustrates the conflicting claim pairs:
Conflicting Patent No. 11,877,024 B2
1
1
2
3
4
6
7
15
16
Conflicting Patent No. 12,368,917 B2
1
3
4
5
6
7
17
19
Pending Application 19/263244
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Conflicting Patent No. 11,877,024 B2
19
20
9
11
14
13
Conflicting Patent No. 12,368,917 B2
21
22
10
12
15
14
Pending Application 19/263244
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Table 2 illustrates a mapping between the limitations claim 1 of the pending application and claims 1 of the conflicting Patent No. 12,368,917 B2 and 11,877,024 B2. Claim 8 and 15 of pending application and claims 17 and 10 in the conflicting Patent No. 12,368,917 B2 and claims 15 and 9 of conflicting Patent No. 11,877,024 B2, respectively, are analyzed similarly. Additionally, the dependent claims are analyzed similarly.
Conflicting Patent No. 12,368,917 B2
Claim 1 of Conflicting Application
Serial Number (19/263244)
Claim 1 of Pending Application
1. A method for improved media content screen sharing, comprising:
generating, by a television signal receiver communicatively coupled to a display device, a first mobile phone and a second mobile phone, a video signal including a first media content item and a second media content item;
transmitting, by the television signal receiver, the video signal to the display device;
transmitting, by the television signal receiver, the video signal to the first mobile phone and the second mobile phone;
generating, by the television signal receiver and in connection with controlling the generated video signal, and transmitting to the first mobile phone a first display sync signal comprising a first set of instructions that cause the first mobile phone to (i) display a first portion of the video signal corresponding to the first media content item and (ii) prevent display of a second portion of the video signal corresponding to the second media content item; and
generating, by the television signal receiver and in connection with controlling the generated video signal, and transmitting to the second mobile phone a second display sync signal comprising a second set of instructions that cause the second mobile phone to (i) display the second portion of the video signal corresponding to the second media content item and (ii) prevent display of the first portion of the video signal.
1. A method for improved media content screen sharing, comprising:
generating, by a television signal receiver communicatively coupled to a first mobile device and a second mobile device, a video signal including a first media content item and a second media content item;
transmitting, by the television signal receiver, a first copy of the video signal to the first mobile device and a second copy of the video signal to the second mobile device;
generating, by the television signal receiver and in connection with controlling the generated video signal, and transmitting to the first mobile device a first display sync signal comprising a first set of instructions that cause the first mobile device to display a first portion of the video signal corresponding to the first media content item; and
generating, by the television signal receiver and in connection with controlling the generated video signal, and transmitting to the second mobile device a second display sync signal comprising a second set of instructions that cause the second mobile device to display the second portion of the video signal corresponding to the second media content item.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows.
Claim 8 sets forth a "computer-readable media". However, the specification as originally filed does not explicitly define the computer-readable media and can be interpreted as a "signal" (¶0035). It is not clear that the computer-readable media is non-transitory. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable media (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media (or non-transitory media) and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (or absent of a controlling definition in the specification). See MPEP §2111.01.
When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter); see Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2 and Official Gazette Notice ink: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2010/week08/TOC.htm#ref20 or Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media (26Jan2010) 1351 OG 212 23FEB2010.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed to nonstatutory subject matter since they do not cure the deficiency of the independent claim 8 as set forth in the above rejection.
The rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to read a “non-transitory computer-readable media.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 recites the limitation "the display sync signal" in last lines of each of the respective claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-US Pub. No. 20150254045 A1 to Drake (A process provides a multi-device display configuration. The process receives, at a master device, one or more device parameters from a plurality of display devices. The process also determines, at the master device, an arrangement of the plurality of display devices that provides a multi-device display. Further, the process sends, from the master device, one or more display indicia to the plurality of display devices that each of the plurality of display devices displays to allow one or more users to position the plurality of display devices in the arrangement. The process sends, from the master device, a first portion of the content to a first display device, and a second portion of the content to a second display device for the first and second display devices to simultaneously display the first and second portions of the content. Alternatively, the process sends, from the master device, display data to the plurality of display devices to allow the plurality of display devices to display corresponding portions of content for the multi-device display based upon the arrangement.)
-US Pub. No. 20120215833 A1 to Chen (The gateway receives serviced client device display structure instructions, first streamed content from a service provider device, and second streamed content from a cloud server, the second streamed content based upon an Internet session hosted by the cloud server. Based upon the serviced client device display structure instructions, the gateway combines the first streamed content with the second streamed content to form merged streamed content and transmits the merged streamed content to the serviced client device. In another operation the gateway forwards the first streamed content to a first client device and the second streamed content to a second client device based upon the serviced client device display structure instructions.)
-US Pub. No. 20120092443 A1 to Mauchly (Synchronizing upstream video sources in vertical synchronization time and in frame rate, so that a downstream device can create a composite image with low latency. At a video compositor device, a plurality of video streams are received that comprise at least first and second video streams. First and second vertical synchronization points associated with the first and second video streams are determined. A difference in time or timing offset between the first and second vertical synchronization points is determined. At least one message is generated that is configured to change a video capture frame rate associated with one or both of the first and second video streams to reduce the difference in time (timing offset) and the message is sent to video capture devices for one or both of the first and second video streams.)
Claims 1-20 have been rejected.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYU CHAE whose telephone number is (571)270-5696. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00am -4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NASSER MOAZZAMI can be reached on 571-272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYU CHAE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights