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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 and 19-20 of US Patent 12,425,690 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims 1-20 and Patent Claims 1-15 and 19-20 are directed to the same invention with a different in scope (broader in scope than the patent claim) and are therefore an obvious variant thereof. (See the mapping of pending claims and patent claims).
Claim 1 in the pending application independent claims is anticipated by conflicting patent independent claims 1 and 2.
Claim 2 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 7.
Claim 3 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 5.
Claim 4 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 6.
Claim 5 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 3.
Claim 6 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 4.
Claim 7 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 1.
Claim 8 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 1.
Claim 9 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 8 and 9.
Claim 10 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 14.
Claim 11 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 12.
Claim 12 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 13.
Claim 13 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 10.
Claim 14 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 11.
Claim 15 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 8.
Claim 16 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 8.
Claim 17 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 15.
Claim 18 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 14 or 7.
Claim 19 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 19.
Claim 20 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 20.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8,10-11,13, 15, 17-18 and 20 of US Patent 11,943,505 B2 in view of Beals (US 2014/0186012 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independnnt claims 1, 9 and 17 of the current application's claims and patented independent claims 1, 8 and 15 directed to the same invention with a different in scope which is a broader in scope than the patented claims, except for “based at least in part on the detecting the one or more triggers, causing at least part of the at least one event to be automatically recorded such that an endpoint media device has access to at least a portion of a recording of the at least one event”.
However, in the related art, Beals discloses based at least in part on the detecting the one or more triggers, causing at least part of the at least one event to be automatically recorded such that an endpoint media device has access to at least a portion of a recording of the at least one event (see page.2,¶0021,¶0026,¶0059,¶0082).
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 Landow and VUNIC with the teaching as taught by Beals in order to access different portions of interesting scene to the viewer by scrolling forward or backward through the program stream, or by specifying a time to jump to in the stream.
As to claims 2-5, 10-13 and 18-20, are rejected on the ground of non-statustory double patenting as being unpatentable over US Patent 11,943,505 B2 in view of Beals (US 2014/0186012 A1. The patented claims fails to discloses “creating one or more cuts of the recording for one or more highlights for access and viewing based at least in part on the one or more triggers”, “discloses highlighting and/or marking one or more portions of the recording based at least in part on the one or more triggers”, “creating one or more selectable options for skipping to one or more segments within the recording based at least in part on the one or more triggers” and “wherein the automatically recording is consequent to a selection corresponding to a content composite by a user in conjunction with presentation of the content composite”.
However, in the related art, Beals further discloses “creating one or more cuts of the recording for one or more highlights for access and viewing based at least in part on the one or more triggers”, “discloses highlighting and/or marking one or more portions of the recording based at least in part on the one or more triggers”(see page.8,¶0071,¶0082), “creating one or more selectable options for skipping to one or more segments within the recording based at least in part on the one or more triggers” and “wherein the automatically recording is consequent to a selection corresponding to a content composite by a user in conjunction with presentation of the content composite”( see page.7,¶0059,¶0071).
Claim 6 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 3.
Claim 7 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 6.
Claim 8 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 4.
Claim 14 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 10.
Claim 15 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 13.
Claim 16 in the pending application is anticipated by conflicting patent claim 11.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0120289 A1 to Carney Landow in view of US 2010/0123830 A1 to VUNIC, and further in view of US 2014/0186012 A1 to Beals.
As to claims 1 and 9, Landow discloses a system/[ a method] comprising: one or more processing devices; and memory communicatively coupled with and readable by the one or more processing devices and having stored therein processor-readable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to perform operations (see page.1,¶0005-¶0006) comprising: detecting a set of one or more electronic communications received via one or more interfaces (see page.8,¶0059¶); detecting, from the set of one or more electronic communications, one or more signals of at least one event specified for digital distribution (see page.7,¶0052,¶0062).
Landow fails explicitly discloses scoring the at least one event based at least in part on viewership data associated with the at least one event to identify a watchability of the at least one event; consequent to the scoring, detecting one or more triggers corresponding to the at least one event.
VUNIC discloses scoring the at least one event based at least in part on viewership data associated with the at least one event to identify a watchability of the at least one event; consequent to the scoring, detecting one or more triggers corresponding to the at least one event (see page.3,¶0024-¶0025).
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 Landow with the teaching as taught by VUNIC in order to provide video feed that contains the event-segment that a user would likely wish to see again.
Landow and VUNIC fails explicitly discloses based at least in part on the detecting the one or more triggers, causing at least part of the at least one event to be automatically recorded such that an endpoint media device has access to at least a portion of a recording of the at least one event.
Beals discloses based at least in part on the detecting the one or more triggers, causing at least part of the at least one event to be automatically recorded such that an endpoint media device has access to at least a portion of a recording of the at least one event (see page.2,¶0021,¶0026,¶0059,¶0082).
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 Landow and VUNIC with the teaching as taught by Beals in order to access different portions of interesting scene to the viewer by scrolling forward or backward through the program stream, or by specifying a time to jump to in the stream.
As to claims 2 and 10, Beals further discloses creating one or more cuts of the recording for one or more highlights for access and viewing based at least in part on the one or more triggers(see page.8,¶0071,¶0082).
As to claims 3 and 11, Beals further discloses highlighting and/or marking one or more portions of the recording based at least in part on the one or more triggers (see page.8,¶0071,¶0082).
As to claims 4 and 12, Beals further discloses creating one or more selectable options for skipping to one or more segments within the recording based at least in part on the one or more triggers(see page.7,¶0059,¶0071).
As to claims 5 and 13, Beals further discloses wherein the automatically recording is consequent to a selection corresponding to a content composite by a user in conjunction with presentation of the content composite(see page.7,¶0059,¶0071).
As to claims 6 and 14, Landow further discloses wherein the one or more triggers correspond to one or more state changes in the at least one event(see page.17,¶0113,¶0182).
As to claims 7 and 15, Landow further discloses wherein the one or more triggers correspond to one or more betting data changes generated based at least in part on the at least one event(see page.20,¶0129).
As to claims 8 and 16, Landow further discloses wherein the one or more triggers correspond to one or more composite selections associated with the endpoint media device (see page.20,¶0129).
As to claim 17, claim 17 is directed toward embody the method of claim 9 in “computer readable medium”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Landow , VUNIC and Beals discussed with respect to claim 9 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; there by the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 18, claim 18 is directed toward embody the method of claim 10 in “computer readable medium”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Landow , VUNIC and Beals discussed with respect to claim 10 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; there by the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 19, claim 19 is directed toward embody the method of claim 11 in “computer readable medium”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Landow , VUNIC and Beals discussed with respect to claim 11 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; there by the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 20, claim 20 is directed toward embody the method of claim 12 in “computer readable medium”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Landow , VUNIC and Beals discussed with respect to claim 12 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; there by the same rejection is applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0273954 A1 to Evans- discloses receiving user data associated with a program; analyzing the user data to determine audience data associated with the program; detecting a triggering event based on detection criteria that includes data from the program or the audience data; and in response to detection of the triggering event, selecting adjunct content to be provided with the program based on selection criteria.
US 2020/0252664 A1 to Weinraub- discloses adaptive content splicing with respect to content corresponding to a televised event, and received and determined to correspond to an event that is televised, one or more indicators of one or more state changes with respect to the event may be detected and a content composite may be created.
US 2022/0157127 A1 to Tadepalli et al- discloses presenting, by the processing system via the at least one interface screen, an integrated media stream comprising media feeds of a selection of sporting events from among a plurality of sporting events, wherein each of the selection of sporting events is associated with a respective media feed and is also available for at least one type of wagering via the sportsbook wagering application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MULUGETA MENGESHA whose telephone number is (469)295-9212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM ET.
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.
MULUGETA MENGESHA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/Mulugeta Mengesha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights