CTNF 19/275,621 CTNF 84306 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 of claim 27 claims “at least one processor is configured to not to receive”, it appears that the language should be amended to “at least one processor is configured to not to receive” . Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1, 33 and 42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,382,121 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 33 and 42 of the instant application capture a broader version of the elements already patented on claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,382,121 . Claims 30-31 and 39-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,382,121 . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1, 33 and 42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,765,419 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 33 and 42 of the instant application capture a broader version of the elements already patented on claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,765,419 . Claims 25 and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,765,419. Claims 30-31 and 39-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,765,419. Claims 32 and 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,765,419 . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1, 33 and 42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,202,115 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 33 and 42 of the instant application capture a broader version of the elements already patented on claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,202,115 . Claims 25 and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,202,115. Claims 30-31 and 39-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,202,115. Claims 32 and 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,202,115 . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1, 33 and 42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,440,415 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 33 and 42 of the instant application capture a broader version of the elements already patented on claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,440,415 . Claims 25 and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,440,415. Claims 30-31 and 39-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,440,415. Claims 32 and 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,440,415 . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1, 33 and 42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,743,128 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 33 and 42 of the instant application capture a broader version of the elements already patented on claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,743,128 . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1, 33 and 42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,319,728 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 33 and 42 of the instant application capture a broader version of the elements already patented on claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,319,728 . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1, 33 and 42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,778 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 33 and 42 of the instant application capture a broader version of the elements already patented on claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,778 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-fti The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-12-fti 07-12 (e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language. 07-15-03-fti Claim s 1, 25-27, 29-36 and 38-43 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Gossweiler et al. (Pub No US 2008/0271078). Hereinafter, referenced as Gossweiler . Regarding claim 1 , Gossweiler discloses an electronic apparatus comprising: a communicator (Paragraphs [0065] [0066] figures 2; real time feed server 212 connected to receiver box 208 over cable network 204); a user input unit configured to receive a user input from a user (Paragraphs [0029] [0045]; e.g. remote control); and at least one processor (Paragraph [0129]; e.g. processor 702) configured to: display a real-time content on a display (Paragraph [0042] figure 1B; display 120 shows a current sports program 122), based on a first user input being received (Paragraph [0054]; user pressing a remote control button to generate momentary program guide 124), display a user interface (UI) of a list (e.g. momentary program guide 124) including a plurality of related contents while the real-time content is being displayed (e.g. current running program 102) on the display without the user having to search for related content of the displayed real-time content (Paragraph [0068] figure 1B; display momentary program guide 124 presents a list of similar games 126, 128, 130 currently in progress in other channels. Wherein the momentary program guide 123 programs are selected based on a similarity in subject matter between the playing program 120 and the suggested programs 126, 128, 130; paragraph [0006]), and based on a second user input (e.g. select another game 126, 128, 130) being received to select one of the plurality of related contents after the list is displayed on the display (e.g. display 100), receive data for displaying the one of the plurality of related contents from a server (Paragraph [0066]; media content server 212) through the communicator after the second user input is received and display the one of the plurality of related contents on the display (Paragraph [0045] figure 1B; a user may select another program, e.g. 126, 128, 130, from the other games currently in progress shown in the momentary program guide 124 by highlighting a program and switching to the channel). Regarding claim 25 , Gossweiler discloses that electronic apparatus of claim 1; moreover, Gossweiler discloses a receiver configured to receive the real-time content (Paragraph [0026]; e.g. live content). Regarding claim 26 , Gossweiler discloses that electronic apparatus of claim 1; moreover, Gossweiler discloses that the receiver comprises a tuning unit to receive the real-time content (Paragraphs [0051] [0052] [0062] figure 3; tuner). Regarding claim 27 , Gossweiler discloses that electronic apparatus of claim 1; moreover, Gossweiler discloses that the at least one processor is configured to not to receive the data for displaying the one of the plurality of related contents based on the second user input (e.g. select another game 126, 128, 130) not being received (Paragraphs [0051] [0052] [0062] figure 3; tuner switches to play selected suggested program, which means that the tuners does not switch to the new program channel unless instructed by the selection of games 126, 128, 130 currently in progress in other channels). Regarding claim 29 , Gossweiler discloses that electronic apparatus of claim 1; moreover, Gossweiler discloses that the communicator is further configured to receive the real-time content from the server (Paragraph [0066] figures 2; real time feed server 212 connected to receiver box 208 over network 204 in order to receive real time video feeds). Regarding claim 30 , Gossweiler discloses that electronic apparatus of claim 1; moreover, Gossweiler discloses that the plurality of related contents relate to at least one of a title, a content type and a genre of the real-time content (Paragraph [0068] figure 1B; display momentary program guide 124 presents a list of similar games 126, 128, 130 currently in progress in other channels, e.g. sports). Regarding claim 31 , Gossweiler discloses that electronic apparatus of claim 1; moreover, Gossweiler discloses that the list comprises information on at least one from among a title, a content type and a genre of the plurality of related contents (Paragraph [0068] figure 1B; display momentary program guide 124 presents a list of similar games 126, 128, 130 currently in progress in other channels, e.g. sports). Regarding claim 32 , Gossweiler discloses that electronic apparatus of claim 1; moreover, Gossweiler discloses that the at least one processor is further configured to process the UI of the list (e.g. display momentary program guide 124) including the plurality of related contents to be displayed over the real-time content with a display size of the real-time content being maintained (Paragraph [0068] figure 1B; display momentary program guide 124 is overlaid over the current sports program 122, which is not changed in size, paragraph [0030]). Regarding claims 33, 34-36 and 38-41 , Gossweiler discloses all the limitations of claims 33, 34-36 and 38-41; therefore, claims 33, 34-36 and 38-41 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 1, 25-27 and 29-32, respectively. Regarding claims 42-43 , Gossweiler discloses all the limitations of claims 42-43; therefore, claims 42-43 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 1 and 25, respectively . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-fti The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-fti Claim s 28 and 37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gossweiler in view of Cordray et al. (Pub No US 2015/0229991). Hereinafter, referenced as Cordray . Regarding claim 28 , Gossweiler discloses that electronic apparatus of claim 1; moreover, Gossweiler discloses that the at least one processor is configured for displaying the one of the plurality of related contents through the communicator based on the second user input being received (Paragraph [0045] figure 1B; a user may select another program, e.g. 126, 128, 130, from the other games currently in progress shown in the momentary program guide 124 by highlighting a program and switching to the channel). However, it is noted that Gossweiler is silent to explicitly disclose transmit a request of data for displaying contents to the server through the communicator based on a user input being received. Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Cordray discloses transmit a request of data for displaying contents to the server through the communicator based on a user input being received (Paragraphs [0099] [0137] figure 1; the user equipment could request media content via communications network 126, distribution facility 104 may then deliver the user-requested content to the user equipment for presentation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Gossweiler by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Cordray, for the predictable result of establishing communication with the server to request for content implementing a well-knows mechanism for requesting content from a server. Regarding claim 37 , Gossweiler and Cordray disclose all the limitations of claim 37; therefore, claim 37 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 28. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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. JUNIOR O. MENDOZA Primary Examiner Art Unit 2424 /JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424 Application/Control Number: 19/275,621 Page 2 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 19/275,621 Page 3 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 19/275,621 Page 4 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 19/275,621 Page 7 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 19/275,621 Page 8 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 19/275,621 Page 9 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 19/275,621 Page 10 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 19/275,621 Page 11 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 19/275,621 Page 12 Art Unit: 2424
Prosecution Insights