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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,368,919. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-12, 14, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 2015/0256903) in view of Carney (US 2021/0136458).
Regarding claim 1, 12, Walker discloses A method comprising: receiving, by a supplemental content server, a request including a supplemental content code originating from a field from closed captioning data associated with broadcasted video content ([0044, 0073]); identifying supplemental content associated with the supplemental content code; and transmitting the supplemental content ([044,0073] Supplemental content identifier is included in the closed captioning data).
Walker does not specifically disclose supplemental content code originating from a secondary captioning field.
However, Carney discloses supplemental content code originating from a secondary captioning field ([0017] “text channel”). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the secondary captioning field into the system of Walker in order to use the text channel to transmit supplemental data.
Regarding claim 3, 14, Walker discloses wherein the supplemental content comprises one or more of:
a video stream stored at the supplemental content server;
statistical data stored at the supplemental content server;
a resource on an external webpage identified by a URL ([0043, 0046, 0053]);
an interactive voting or polling interface;
a gaming interface;
a wagering interface;
an additional informational interface; and/or
a shopping interface concerning products or services for purchase.
Regarding claim 4, 15, Walker discloses wherein the broadcasted video content is under the Digital Television Closed Captioning (DTVCC) standard, and the closed captioning data is implemented
as DTVCC CTA-708 data and/or CTA-608 data that is upconverted, further wherein the
supplemental content code is encoded in the secondary captioning field of the CTA-708 data
and/or CTA-608 data ([0044, 0073]).
Regarding claim 6, 17, Walker discloses wherein the closed captioning data includes primary closed captioning data that is not received by the supplemental content server and remains available for
text presentation on a display of a user computing device by a closed captioning decoder. ([0056, 0073]).
Regarding claim 7, Walker discloses receiving, by the supplemental content server, identification information pertaining to user computing device ([0010]).
Regarding claim 8, Walker discloses receiving, by the supplemental content server, information pertaining to duration of all or a portion of interactive viewing session of a user computing device ([0012-0014]).
Regarding claim 9, Walker discloses receiving, by the supplemental content server, information pertaining to user provided feedback ([0015, 0034, 0042, 0065]).
Regarding claim 10, Walker discloses receiving, by the supplemental content server, information pertaining to user provided feedback ([0015, 0034, 0042, 0065]).
Regarding claim 11, Walker discloses receiving, by the supplemental content server, information pertaining to viewing information of the user computing device ([0035, 0065]).
Claim(s) 2, 5, 13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 2015/0256903) in view of Carney (US 2021/0136458) in view of Kuang (US 2021/0211271).
Regarding claim 2, 13, Walker in view of Carney discloses wherein the supplemental content code comprises a code that is unique to, and associated with, said supplemental content, and wherein a user computing device comprise a decoder that scans the secondary captioning field ([0017] of Carney) of the closed captioning data associated with the broadcasted video content ([0044, 0073] of Walker).
However, Walker in view of Carney does not specifically disclose hash code and hash decoder.
Kuang discloses hash code and hash decoder ([0178]). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the hash code of Kuang into the system of Walker in view of Carney in order to provide fast data retrieval.
Regarding claim 5, 16, Walker discloses wherein the broadcasted video content is under the Digital Television Closed Captioning (DTVCC) standard, and the closed captioning data is implemented
as DTVCC CTA-708 data and/or CTA-608 data that is upconverted, further wherein the supplemental content code is encoded in the secondary captioning field of the CTA-708 data and/or CTA-608 data ([0044, 0073]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL HYUN HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at (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 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.
/MICHAEL H HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights