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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,452,491. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
For example, the independent claim 1 of patent 12,452,491 includes additional limitations of "detect ... while a content is being played by a media device, a composition change...", and “determine … the composition changed …”. Accordingly, instant application’s claim 1 is broader than patent claim 1, therefore, obvious over patent claim 1.
Similar analysis applied to the independent claims 11 and 18, therefore, are rejected the same.
The dependent claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 recite similar features and are rejected the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woods et al., USPGPUB 2013/0179698 (hereinafter “Wood”).
Regarding claim 1, Woods discloses a system (As shown in Figs. 3, 4, 9), comprising:
a storage module (Fig, 3, 308); and
at least one processor each coupled to the storage module (306/ 308) and configured to:
detect an audience within a vicinity of a media device based on identification information of the audience received by the media device (Fig. 12, and corresponding description; ¶¶ [89], [170]-[174]);
determine a category of the audience with a user identification system based on the identification information (¶¶ [89], [171]-[173]);
identify a parental control setting for the audience based on the category of the audience (¶¶ [89], [171]-[173]);
determine a category of a content played by the media device (Examples of several determined categories: ¶¶ [89], [141], [147]; Also See Fig. 13 and corresponding description); and
apply the identified parental control setting to the media device based on the category of the content (¶¶ [89], [141], [147], [170]-[174].
The method of claim 11 recites similar features as those of the system of claim 1, effectuating the same, therefore, is rejected by the same analysis.
The computer program product of claim 18 recites similar features as those of the method of claim 1, effectuating the same, therefore, is rejected by the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4-5, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods, in view of Matsuzawa, USPGPUB 2021/0118276 (hereinafter “Matsuzawa”).
Regarding claim 4, Woods is silent on wherein the identification information includes an utterance of the audience captured by an audio sensor.
However, Matsuzawa discloses a method, system, and computer program product for identifying a user using biometric data (¶¶ [104]) wherein the identification information includes an utterance of the audience captured by an audio sensor (¶¶ [104], [158]).
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 the system of Woods with Matsuzawa’s teachings in order to utilize ubiquitous identification technologies based on biometric factors.
Claim 5 is rejected the same as claim 4, as Woods teaches determining the category of the audience based on identification of the user, based on characteristics of the user (As analyzed in claims 1 and 4), and Matsuzawa teaches such characteristics to be biometric data, such as utterance of the audience (¶¶ [104], [158]).
The method of claims 14-15 recite similar features as those of the system of claims 4-5, effectuating the same, therefore, is rejected by the same analysis.
The computer program product of claim 20 recites similar features as those of the method of claim 14-15, effectuating the same, therefore, is rejected by the same analysis.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods, in view of Matsuzawa, further in view of Alexander et al., USPGPUB 2024/0193167 (hereinafter “Alexander”).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the system of Woods and Matsuzawa discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a parental (guardian/ overseer) status of the audience based on the identification information;
determine, with a natural language understanding system, the identity/ category of the user based on the utterance; and
identify the parental control setting based on the utterance.
The system of Woods and Matsuzawa is not explicit in wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine an administrator status of the audience based on the identification information;
determine, with a natural language understanding system, an intent of the audience based on the utterance; and
identify the parental control setting based on the administrator status and the intent of the audience.
However, Alexander discloses a method and system for processing utterances and metadata for assigning structure to candidate groups wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine an administrator status of the audience based on the identification information (¶ [131]);
determine, with a natural language understanding system, an intent of the audience based on the utterance (¶¶ [77]); and
identify the parental control setting based on the administrator status and the intent of the audience (¶¶ [77], [131]).
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 the system of Woods and Matsuzawa with Alexander’s teachings in order to further refine the roles/ responsibilities/ intents in order to improve user experience (See Alexander ¶ [3] for motivation).
Claims 2-3, 12-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods, in view of Matsuzawa, further in view of Alanazi et al, “Towards a Low-Cost Solution for Gait Analysis Using Millimeter Wave Sensor and Machine Learning”; Sensors, MPDI, July 22, 2022 (hereinafter “Alanazi”).
Regarding claim 2, the system of Woods and Matsuzawa teaches wherein the identification information includes a gait of the audience (Matsuzawa: ¶¶ [119]), captured by a proximity sensor, such as ultrasonic wave sensors (Matsuzawa: ¶ [90]).
The system of Woods and Matsuzawa is not explicit on the use of millimeter wave sensors.
However, Alanazi discloses a method for gait analysis using ultrasonic wave sensors (Page 3, 3rd paragraph), and millimeter wave sensors (Abstract).
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 the system of Woods and Matsuzawa with Alanazi’s teachings in order to provide better performance at lower cost (See Alanazi: Page 3, 3rd paragraph for motivation).
Claim 3 is rejected the same as claim 2, as Woods teaches determining the category of the audience based on identification of the user, based on characteristics of the user (As analyzed in claim 1), and Matsuzawa teaches such characteristics to be biometric data based on the teachings of Alanazi for millimeter wave sensors.
The method of claims 12-13 recite similar features as those of the system of claims 2-3, effectuating the same, therefore, is rejected by the same analysis.
The computer program product of claim 19 recites similar features as those of the method of claims 12-13, effectuating the same, therefore, is rejected by the same analysis.
Claims 7-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods, in view of Santangelo et al., USPN 8,924,999 (hereinafter “Santangelo”).
Regarding claim 7, Woods discloses identifying multiple users within the household once in the vicinity of the media device (e.g., ¶¶ [170]-[172]). Woods is not explicit in:
detect an additional audience within the vicinity of the media device based on additional identification information of the additional audience received by the media device;
determine an additional category of the additional audience based on the additional identification information; and
identify an additional parental control setting for the additional audience based on the additional category, wherein the additional parental control setting has a priority different from the parental control setting.
However, Santangelo discloses a method, system, and computer program product for providing individualized programming to subscribers (Abstract) by:
detect an additional audience within the vicinity of the media device based on additional identification information of the additional audience received by the media device (Fig. 3, Col. 11, lines 14-63);
determine an additional category of the additional audience based on the additional identification information (Col. 11, lines 14-63); and
identify an additional parental control setting for the additional audience based on the additional category, wherein the additional parental control setting has a priority different from the parental control setting (Col. 11, lines 14-63). Also see Fig. 2, Col. 10, lines 1-37.
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 the system of Woods with Santangelo’s teachings in order to provide a wide-ranging choice for multiple viewers at the same time watching the same device.
Regarding claim 8, the system of Woods and Santangelo discloses wherein to apply the parental control setting, the at least one processor is configured to apply the parental control setting in response to a priority of the parental control setting being higher than a priority of the additional parental control setting (Santangelo: Col. 11, lines 14-63; Col. 10, lines 1-37).
Regarding claim 9, the system of Woods and Santangelo discloses wherein the parental control setting comprises pausing the content played by the media device and displaying a PIN entry prompt to the audience (Santangelo: Col. 10, lines 1-37).
Regarding claim 10, the system of Woods and Santangelo discloses wherein the parental control setting comprises obscuring the content played by the media device (Woods: Fig. 8B and corresponding description) and displaying a PIN entry prompt to the audience (Santangelo: Col. 10, lines 1-37).
The method of claim 17 recites similar features as those of the system of claims 7-8, effectuating the same, therefore, is rejected by the same analysis.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R MARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-7 ET flex.
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, Nathan J Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. 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.
/JAMES R MARANDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
