DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are pending.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Binder (US 2018/0091855).
Claim 1, Binder teaches A method comprising:
at an electronic device (101) in communication with a display (102) and one or more input devices (103) (fig. 1; p. 0053-0056):
displaying, on the display, a user interface of a unified media browsing application (i.e. app for accessing content), wherein the user interface includes a plurality of representations of a plurality of content items (i.e. content assets) that are selectable to initiate processes to access the content items, including a first representation of a first content item (i.e. access content assets) (p. 0060);
while displaying the user interface, receiving, via the one or more input devices, an input corresponding to a request to play a first content item (i.e. selecting content asset) (p. 0060); and
in response to receiving the input (i.e. selection of a content asset) (p. 0060):
in accordance with a determination that a current location of the electronic device satisfies one or more geography criteria (i.e. authorized location) associated with the first content item, displaying, on the display, the first content item (i.e. providing content to access device) (i.e. p. 0053-0056); and
in accordance with a determination that the current location of the electronic device does not satisfy the one or more geography criteria (i.e. unauthorized location) associated with the first content item, forgoing displaying, on the display, the first content item (i.e. disabling content to access device) (i.e. p. 0053-0056, 0076).
Claim 2, Binder teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of representations includes a second representation of a second content item, when the current location of the electronic device is a first location, the current location of the electronic device satisfies the one or more geography criteria associated with the first content item and one or more geography criteria associated with the second content item, and when the current location of the electronic device is a second location, the current location of the electronic device satisfies the one or more geography criteria associated with the first content item but does not satisfy the one or more geography criteria associated with the second content item (i.e. Binder disclose a system that provides a plurality of content assets for LOCATION 1 and LOCATION 2. First and second content assets exist in both locations. If a content asset is unauthorized, the system of Binder will provide a change of content assets authorized for the location. Therefore, Binder supports an asset that is authorized in one location and not authorized in another location simultaneously with another asset that is authorized or unauthorized) (p. 0024-0027, 0053-0056, 0076, 0081).
Claim 5, Binder teaches The method of claim 1, wherein a user of the electronic device is entitled to access the plurality of content items from the unified media browsing application (i.e. interacting with content assets through app) (p. 0053-0060).
Claim 7 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device in communication with a display and one or more input devices, cause the electronic device” to perform the steps of claim 1. Binder teaches “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device in communication with a display and one or more input devices, cause the electronic device” to perform the steps of claim 1 (p. 0083).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binder (US 2018/0091855) in view of Shovkoplias (US 2015/0150045).
Claim 3, Binder teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
before displaying the unified media browsing application, receiving, via the one or more input devices (103), an input corresponding to a request to display the unified media browsing application (i.e. launching the app) (p. 0060); and
in response to receiving the input corresponding to the request to display the unified media browsing application (p. 0060):
displaying, on the display, the user interface of the unified media browsing application (i.e. app allows interaction with content assets) (p. 0060);
“in accordance with a determination that the current location of the electronic device does not satisfy one or more geography criteria for at least one content item available in the unified media browsing application (i.e. unauthorized for location), displaying, in the user interface, notification that one or more content items are not available for viewing at the current location of the electronic device” (i.e. notification regarding unauthorized use); and
in accordance with a determination that the current location of the electronic device satisfies one or more geography criteria for all of the content items available in the unified media browsing application, forgoing displaying the notification (i.e. authorized location) (p. 0053-0056).
Binder is not entirely clear in teaching the specific feature of:
“wherein the notification does not persist in the user interface as a user of the electronic device navigates through the unified media browsing application”.
Shovkoplias teaches the specific feature of:
“wherein the notification does not persist in the user interface as a user of the electronic device navigates through the unified media browsing application” (i.e. automatically close after a designated amount of time) (p. 0049).
Threrefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided notification duration as taught by Shovkoplias to the system of Binder to provide alerts to a user (p. 0049).
Claim 4, Binder teaches The method of claim 1, wherein displaying the user interface of the unified media browsing application includes:
“in accordance with a determination that the current location of the electronic device does not satisfy one or more geography criteria for at least one content item available in the unified media browsing application (i.e. unauthorized for location), displaying, in the user interface, a visual indication that one or more content items are not available for viewing at the current location of the electronic device” (i.e. notification regarding unauthorized use) (p. 0053-0056); and
in accordance with a determination that the current location of the electronic device satisfies one or more geography criteria for all of the content items available in the unified media browsing application, forgoing displaying the visual indication that one or more content items are not available for viewing at the current location of the electronic device (i.e. authorized location) (p. 0053-0056).
Binder is not entirely clear in teaching the specific feature of:
“wherein the visual indication persists in the user interface as a user of the electronic device navigates through the unified media browsing application”.
Shovkoplias teaches the specific feature of:
“wherein the visual indication persists in the user interface as a user of the electronic device navigates through the unified media browsing application” (i.e. displayed in a persistent manner) (p. 0049).
Threrefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided notification duration as taught by Shovkoplias to the system of Binder to provide alerts to a user (p. 0049).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binder (US 2018/0091855) in view of Blohowiak et al. (US 2017/0289591).
Claim 6, Binder teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that a user of the electronic device will be traveling to a location that will not satisfy one or more geography criteria for a first set of content items in the unified media browsing application (i.e. traveling to location 2) (p. 0053-0056).
Binder is silent regarding The method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to determining that the user of the electronic device will be traveling to the location that will not satisfy one or more geography criteria for the first set of content items, displaying, on the display, a visual indication that indicates that the first set of content items can be downloaded to the electronic device, and this is selectable to initiate one or more processes to download the first set of content items to the electronic device.
Blohowiak teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to determining that the user of the electronic device will be traveling to the location that will not satisfy one or more geography criteria for the first set of content items (i.e. content unavailable), displaying, on the display, a visual indication that indicates that the first set of content items can be downloaded to the electronic device (i.e. download option), and this is selectable to initiate one or more processes to download the first set of content items to the electronic device (p. 0088).
Threrefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided downloading of unavailable content as taught by Blohowiak to the system of Binder to provide download of content to be viewed when the content is unavailable.
Conclusion
Claims 1-8 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11523184 B1 Channapragada; Srikanth et al. – alerts for content soon to be unavailable
US 9832502 B1 Goetz; Jeromey Russell et al. – location restrictions for content
US 20170339457 A1 Patel; Milan et al. – degrade quality when location is unauthorized
US 20160037332 A1 Egeler; Christian et al. – locations where devices are restricted
US 20150222950 A1 Sant; Philip Anthony et al. – downloading before travel
US 20130346564 A1 Warrick; Peter S. et al. – in room streaming location specific
US 20130090129 A1 TURNER; CHARLES D. et al. – mobile device and restricted area
US 20120233640 A1 Odryna; Victor et al. – geographically restricted content
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSHFIKH I ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1710. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00PM-9:00PM.
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, 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.
MUSHFIKH I. ALAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2426
/MUSHFIKH I ALAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 9/24/2026
