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
Claims 1–20 have been submitted for examination.
Claims 1–20 have been examined and rejected.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,464,178.
US 19/357,282 Claim 1
US 12,464,178 Claim 1
A system, comprising:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
one or more memories; and at least one processor each coupled to at least one of the one or more memories and configured to perform operations comprising:
capturing, by an image capture device of the system, a pictograph displayed by a media playback device,
causing, by at least one processor, display of a pictograph via a media playback device,
wherein the pictograph comprises a payload comprising encrypted information for communicatively coupling the system to the media playback device and a cryptographic certificate to identify the media playback device;
wherein the pictograph comprises an encrypted payload comprising:
sending, via a network, the payload to a server for identifying the media playback device;
information for connecting to the media playback device, and a cryptographic certificate to identify the media playback device by a server;
receiving a request from the server based on a successful identification of the media playback device,
receiving a request from a client device to connect to the media playback device,
wherein the request includes a server-decrypted version of the information for communicatively coupling the system to the media playback device; and
wherein the request includes a server-decrypted version of the information for connecting to the media playback device;
determining that the request is valid; in response to determining that the request is valid, connecting the client device to the media playback device based on the server-decrypted version of the information; and
communicatively coupling the system to the media playback device based on the request.
receiving reconfiguration information for reconfiguring the media playback device.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,464,178. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table above. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Instant claims 2–20 contain similar limitations as patented claims 2–20 and are rejected for similar reasons as independent claim 1.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,184,657.
US 19/357,282 Claim 1
US 11,184,657 Claim 1
A system, comprising:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
one or more memories; and at least one processor each coupled to at least one of the one or more memories and configured to perform operations comprising:
determining whether a media playback device is being controlled by a user; and in response to determining that the media playback device is not being controlled by the user:
capturing, by an image capture device of the system, a pictograph displayed by a media playback device,
causing display of a pictograph by the media playback device,
wherein the pictograph comprises a payload comprising encrypted information for communicatively coupling the system to the media playback device and a cryptographic certificate to identify the media playback device;
wherein the pictograph comprises an encrypted payload comprising information for wirelessly connecting to the media playback device and a cryptographic certificate to identify the media playback device by a server, and
sending, via a network, the payload to a server for identifying the media playback device;
wherein the pictograph is configured to be scanned by a client device;
receiving a request from the server based on a successful identification of the media playback device,
determining whether a request from the client device to wirelessly connect to the media playback device is a valid request,
wherein the request includes a server-decrypted version of the information for communicatively coupling the system to the media playback device; and
wherein the request includes decrypted information generated by the server for wirelessly connecting to the media playback device;
communicatively coupling the system to the media playback device based on the request.
in response to the request being valid, wirelessly connecting the client device to the media playback device via a soft access point; and
receiving, at the media playback device, information for reconfiguring the media playback device.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,184,657. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table above. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Instant claims 2–20 contain similar limitations as patented claims 2–20, and are rejected for similar reasons as independent claim 1.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,041,282.
US 19/357,282 Claim 1
US 12,041,282 Claim 1
A system, comprising:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
one or more memories; and at least one processor each coupled to at least one of the one or more memories and configured to perform operations comprising:
capturing, by an image capture device of the system, a pictograph displayed by a media playback device, wherein the pictograph comprises a payload comprising encrypted information for communicatively coupling the system to the media playback device and a cryptographic certificate to identify the media playback device;
receiving, via a network, a payload based on a pictograph from a computing device, the payload comprising: encrypted information for connecting the computing device to a media playback device; and a cryptographic certificate to identify the media playback device;
sending, via a network, the payload to a server for identifying the media playback device;
identifying the media playback device based on the cryptographic certificate;
receiving a request from the server based on a successful identification of the media playback device, wherein the request includes a server-decrypted version of the information for communicatively coupling the system to the media playback device; and
decrypting, by at least one computer processor, the encrypted information to obtain information for connecting the computing device to the identified media playback device;
communicatively coupling the system to the media playback device based on the request.
and providing a reconfiguration request to the computing device,
wherein the reconfiguration request includes the information for connecting the computing device to the identified media playback device.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,041,282. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table above. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Instant claims 2–20 contain similar limitations as patented claims 2–20, and are rejected for similar reasons as independent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B PIERORAZIO whose telephone number is (571)270-3679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8am - 5pm.
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 on 5712704195. 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.
/MICHAEL B. PIERORAZIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
