DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to amendment fled on 15 August 2025. Claims 1-27 have been cancelled. Claims 28-47 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
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 28-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,922, 721 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
19/300955
10,922,721
A transmedia scheduling system, comprising:
one or more processors configured to execute software instructions stored on one or more non-transitory computer readable media to function as:
a channel engine configured to generate a user interface that includes first and second channels based on a plurality of channel templates stored in a channel database;
a story engine configured to dynamically populate the first and second channels with concurrent transmedia story objects from a transmedia story database and to instruct a user media device to render a transmedia story from one or more of the transmedia story objects in the first and second channels, at least one of the story objects comprising a plurality of story media streams to be synchronously presented on multiple user media devices, the plurality of story media streams including a text message to be sent to a mobile computing device from among the user media devices and an associated video to be played on another of the user media devices, the text message including at least some content that is not derivable from the video; and
a registration engine configured to receive a user's selected level of immersion for the transmedia story from among a plurality of levels of immersion including a first immersion level at which the text message is sent to the mobile computing device and the video is played on the another of the user media devices and a second immersion level at which the text message is not sent to the mobile computing device and the video is played on the another user media device, wherein the story engine is configured to instruct the user media devices to render the transmedia story according to the selected level of immersion
the A transmedia scheduling system, comprising:
a transmedia story database configured to store at least one transmedia story object, the at least one transmedia story object comprising a plurality of story media streams to be synchronously presented on multiple user media devices, the plurality of story media streams including a text message to be sent to a mobile computing device from among the user media devices and an associated video to be played on another of the user media devices, the text message including at least some content that is not derivable from the video;
a channel database configured to store a plurality of channel templates; and one or more processors configured to execute software instructions stored on one or more non-transitory computer readable media to function as:
a channel engine communicatively coupled to the transmedia story database and the channel database, and configured to generate a user interface that includes first and second channels based on the channel templates;
a story engine communicatively coupled with the transmedia story database, and configured to dynamically render a transmedia story from one or more of the transmedia story objects in the first channel based on at least one of a user preference, a user location, user data, and a user viewing history; and
a registration engine configured to allow a user to select a level of immersion for the at least one transmedia story object from among a plurality of levels of immersion, the plurality of levels of immersion including a first immersion level at which the text message is sent to the mobile computing device and the video is played on the another of the user media devices and a second immersion level at which the text message is not sent to the mobile computing device and the video is played on the another user media device;
wherein each of the first and second channels is dynamically populated with concurrent transmedia story objects from the transmedia story database; and
wherein the registration engine is configured to receive a user's selected level of immersion from among the plurality of levels of immersion, and the story engine is configured to instruct user media devices to render one or more of the plurality of story media streams according to the selected level of immersion.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: though the wordings are different, the limitation carried are either inherently implied or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. 19/300,955 recites “a story engine configured to dynamically populate the first and second channel” vs “a channel engine communicatively coupled with the trans media story data based and congrued to dynamically render a transmedia store” , which is merely a different way of workings, however, it would have been obvious to the one ordinary skill in the art that bot cover a computer system that dynamically takes store data and push it to diffent channels. 19/300,955 recites “registration engine configured to receive a user’s selected level ..” vs “registration engine configured to allow a user to select ..” These two phrases describe the same technical process for gathering user choices. Changing the wording from "configured to receive" to "configured to allow a user to select" is a minor language change. It does not create a new or different invention. Further, it is widely known in the art that, in order to effectively preserve record for future reference to cover identical computer operation suing simple synonyms which is merely a routine work contemplatable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Step 1: The claims 28-45 are a system, claim 46 is a method and claim 47 is a medium . Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 28-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A-Prong 1: The independent claims (28, 46 and 47) recite scheduling stores, providing interface, displying information based on user choose (level of immersion) and sending test message. Theses limitation as drafted, is a process, under broadest reasonable intepration, the claims cover a rule of human behavior, an economic practice of organizing, displying and selecting content in response to the text message sent. These limitation fall within “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial or legal interaction (including agreements in the form of contract; legal obligation; advertising. Marketing or sales activities or behavior business relation). Simply put, these limitation merely describe schedules and delivers transmedia story objects across multiple channels and devices, while letting the user choose an immersion level, which is clearly a business arrangement in its purest form. Claims 29-45 merely provide additional abstract concepts and narrow the abstract idea of claim 28.
Further, claims 28-47 are recited at such a high level that the claimed steps amount to no more than a mental process, such as concept performed in human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because a huma can choose or select the level of immersion to which the text message is sent to, acknowledge an agreement to play the video.
Step 2A-Prong 2: The claims recite additional elements of a transmedia scheduling system. Theses scheduling system are recited at a high-level of generality(i.e., processor, database for storing data, server software instructions ,engines, mobile computing device) such that it amount no more adding th work “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merle uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Furthermore, the use of generic computer parts like databases, servers, and mobile devices without claiming a new, specific way to improve the computer's own technology or how it works. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
The following reference are the closest prior arts:
Larsen et al (US Pub., 2012/0236201 A1) discloses synchronization of the video content, audio content, and text transcription of the audio content with each other during video playback and also as a user selectively navigates to different scenes of the video content.
Van Wie et al (US Pub/. 2009/0254843 A1) discloses system and methods provide a framework that includes one or more virtual areas and supports real-time communication between the communication that enable user to navigates virtual areas and interaction control and interact with other communication in one or more virtual areas.
Thornton et al (US Pub., 2003/0056220 A1) discloses first devices selects at least one multimedia presentation. Based on this selection, the multimedia presentation is accessed from a storage source and presented to the user. Simultaneously, information is transmitted to at least a second device that cause the selected multimedia presentation to be presented by at least second devices without the at least second device receiving input them the second user.
Flake et al (US Pub., 2008/0004990 A1) discloses virtual spot market for advertisements.
Geoffrey A. Long (Transmedia Storytelling Business, Aesthetics and Production at the Jim Henson Company) 11 May 2007 focused transmedia narratives use a combination of Barthesian hermeneutic codes, negative capability and migratory cues to guide audiences across multiple media platforms. This thesis examines complex narratives from comics, novels, films and video games, but draws upon the transmedia franchises built around Jim Henson's Labyrinth and The Dark Crystal to provide two primary case studies in how these techniques can be deployed with varying results (abstract), gatherers, chasing down bits of the story across media channels,
comparing notes with each other via online discussion groups, and collaborating to ensure that everyone who invests time and effort will come away with a richer entertainment experience (page Long 28, paragraph 1) and desire to experience immersion (page long 54, paragraph 3).
None of the cited references teaches or suggest otherwise render obvious the combination of features recited in independent claims. The claims includes “a first immersion level at which text message is sent to the mobile computing device and the video is played on the other of the user media devices and a second immersion level at which the text message is not set to the mobile computing device and the video is played on the another user media device, with the text message including at least some content that is not derivable from the video”, wherein the story engine is configured to instruct the user media devices to render on or more of the plurlity of story media streams according to the selected level of immersion”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABA DAGNEW whose telephone number is (571)270-3271. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:45.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at (571) 270 -3948. 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.
/SABA DAGNEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights