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 .
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, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,407,888. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application broadly capture the elements already patented in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,407,888.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,958,960. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application broadly capture the elements already patented in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,958,960.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,631,033. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application broadly capture the elements already patented in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,631,033.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,571,875. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application broadly capture the elements already patented in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,571,875.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,924,215. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application broadly capture the elements already patented in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,924,215.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McDevitt (Pub No US 2012/0183229). Hereinafter, referenced as McDevitt.
Regarding claim 1, McDevitt discloses a method comprising:
receiving, from a primary content source (e.g. content source 110), based on a request from a user device, first primary content (Paragraph [0033] figure 1; content source 110, e.g. streaming live or recorded content), wherein the first primary content comprises one or more objects (Paragraphs [0008] [0011] figure 1; recognizing items in the media content from content source 110. Wherein the process may alternatively be performed at the viewing device 145, paragraph [0025]);
comparing the first primary content with stored primary content (Paragraphs [0011] [0012] figures 1 and 2; reference content database 115);
determining, based on the comparison, the stored primary content comprises the one or more objects (Paragraphs [0011]-[0013] figures 1 and 2; determining that a match exists between the compared recognized item and reference content database 115 in order to merge data about the item with the video stream 225, paragraph [0030]);
and launching, based on the one or more objects, one or more applications (Paragraph [0031] figures 1 and 2; launching electronic shopping interaction 240).
Regarding claim 2, McDevitt discloses the method of claim 1; moreover, McDevitt discloses that one or more of the first primary content or the stored primary content comprises one or more of: streaming content, on-demand content, live television content, audio content, video content, augmented reality content, or virtual reality content (Paragraph [0033] figure 1; content source 110, e.g. streaming live or recorded content).
Regarding claim 3, McDevitt discloses the method of claim 1; moreover, McDevitt discloses that the one or more applications comprise one or more e-commerce applications (Paragraph [0031] figures 1 and 2; launching electronic shopping interaction 240).
Regarding claim 4, McDevitt discloses the method of claim 1; moreover, McDevitt discloses that launching the one or more applications comprises accessing one or more external databases (Paragraphs [0016]; e.g. product website).
Regarding claim 6, McDevitt discloses the method of claim 1; moreover, McDevitt discloses performing, on the first primary content, at least one of: object detection, object recognition, facial recognition, digital signature analysis, digital fingerprint analysis, or processing metadata (Paragraphs [0010] [0011]; item recognition, fingerprint, etc.).
Regarding claim 7, McDevitt discloses the method of claim 1; moreover, McDevitt discloses determining product information associated with the one or more objects (Paragraphs [0016]; e.g. price information, product description, etc.).
Regarding claims 8-11 and 13-14, McDevitt discloses all the limitations of claims 8-11 and 13-14; therefore, claims 8-11 and 13-14 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 1-4 and 6-7, respectively.
Regarding claims 15-18 and 20, McDevitt discloses all the limitations of claims 15-18 and 20; therefore, claims 15-18 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons stated in claims 1-4 and 7, respectively.
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.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDevitt in view of Choe et al. (KR 20130053616A). Hereinafter, referenced as Choe.
Regarding claim 5, McDevitt discloses the method of claim 1; moreover, McDevitt discloses determining the one or more objects (Paragraphs [0010] [0011]; item recognition, fingerprint, etc.).
However, it is noted that McDevitt is silent to explicitly disclose determining, based on the one or more objects, one or more local RFID enabled devices.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Choe discloses determining, based on the one or more objects (Page 2; detect food-related object included in the played content), one or more local RFID enabled devices (Page 3; the smart TV presenting a cooking show, detecting food-related objects in a recipe, figure 3, and communicating with the refrigerator to check for a food wish list based on the food stock lists stored in the smart refrigerator; page 6. Wherein the short range communication may be RFID; page 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McDevitt by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Choe, for the predictable result of providing food information in a smart television so that the information of the home electronic device, e.g. refrigerator, can be efficiently transmitted through the smart TV (Choe – page 3).
Regarding claim 12, McDevitt and Choe disclose all the limitations of claim 12; therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, McDevitt and Choe disclose all the limitations of claim 19; therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 5.
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
Prosecution Insights