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 .
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 1-20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4,6-11,13-18, and 20, 21 of U.S. Patent No.US 12,518,296 in view of Lee et al. (US 2006/0155763). Claims 1, 8 and 15 recites receiving a replacement object from an object serve, identifying a layer based on metadata, and replacing the current object in the identified layer. Lee teaches at [0057] updating a loop by replacing existing content with modified content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the current and replacement objects of the patented method as selectable objects.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5 - 8, 12 - 15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2006/0155763) in view of Leskela et al. (US 2011/0246916) in further view of Billmaier et al. (US 2004/0181804)
Claims 1,8, and 15: Lee discloses computer-implemented method for dynamically adjusting a screensaver while in a display loop on a display device, comprising:
initiating, by at least one computer processor of a media device in communication with the display device, the screensaver in a display loop on the display device, wherein the screensaver and wherein the display loop comprises horizontally scrolling the screensaver on the display device; ([0028], he client 102 has a media engine 104 coupled to the client 102 for creating and/or generating at least one loop 106. The media engine 104 may also play the loop 106. A loop player comprises the graphical representation of the media engine 104. The media engine 104 may be installed onto the client 102 by a single input. [0030] In one embodiment, the loop 106 scrolls, or is otherwise played, across a display associated with the client 102. In some embodiments, the loop 106 may be manipulated by a user of the client 102 to stop, speed up, or slow down the scrolling of the loop 106, and/or any other type of manipulation. The client 102 may have more than one loop 106 that scrolls across the display at one time[0120], that scrolls across a display device, as a miniature version of the loop(s) 106, as a screen saver for a computing device)
displaying, during a first loop of the display loop, a first portion of the screensaver on the
display device; ([0120], that scrolls across a display device, as a miniature version of the loop(s) 106, as a screen saver for a computing device) But does not explicitly disclose
displaying, during the first loop of the display loop, a second portion of the screensaver on the display device such that the first portion of the screensaver is positioned off-screen of the display device; transmitting an object request to an object server while the second portion of the screensaver is displayed during the first loop of the display loop, and wherein the object request includes a request for a replacement object; identifying, based on metadata of the replacement object, an object type and a layer in the plurality of layers for inserting the replacement object, identifying, based on the object type, an object to be replaced in the identified layer;
replacing, while the second portion of the screensaver is displayed during the first loop, the
object to be replaced with the replacement object; and displaying, during a second loop of the display loop, the first portion of the screensaver with the replacement object.
However Leskela disclose comprises a plurality of layers including a background layer, a middle layer, and a foreground layer, wherein the identified layer comprises one of the background layer, the middle layer, or the foreground layer; ([0079], bring a semi-transparent user interface layer to the foreground (e.g., overlying a second user interface layer), send a semi-transparent user interface layer to the background (e.g., underlying a second user interface layer) [0081], , the interface control circuitry 120 may be configured to cause a semi-transparent user interface layer to be displayed in the middle of a stack of user interface layers. As another example, the interface control circuitry 120 may be configured to cause display of a semi-transparent user interface layer in between a stack of two or more displayed windows.)
identifying, based on metadata of the replacement object, an object type and a layer in the plurality of layers for inserting the replacement object, identifying, based on the object type, an object to be replaced in the identified layer; ([0071] a user may view metadata or other more descriptive data associated with the content item without fully opening or consuming the content item in the second user interface layer (e.g., main user interface layer).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, Lee to include a plurality of layers including a background layer, a middle layer, and a foreground layer, wherein the identified layer comprises one of the background layer, the middle layer, or the foreground layer; identifying, based on metadata of the replacement object, an object type and a layer in the plurality of layers for inserting the replacement object, identifying, based on the object type, an object to be replaced in the identified layer; in order to display additional content concurrently without interfering with content displayed in another layer . ([0003],Leskela) Lee and Leskelaut do not explicitly disclose displaying, during the first loop of the display loop, a second portion of the screensaver on the display device such that the first portion of the screensaver is positioned off-screen of the display device; transmitting an object request to an object server while the second portion of the screensaver is displayed during the first loop of the display loop, and wherein the object request includes a request for a replacement object; However Billmaier discloses displaying, during the first loop of the display loop, a second portion of the screensaver on the display device such that the first portion of the screensaver is positioned off-screen of the display device; ([0042] Typically, one or more cards 200 in a sequence 300 are not displayed. These off-screen or hidden cards may be dynamically changed, replaced, or updated during navigation, e.g., a card 200 representing an advertisement may change from one sponsor to another.) transmitting an object request to an object server while the second portion of the screensaver is displayed during the first loop of the display loop, and wherein the object request includes a request for a replacement object; replacing, while the second portion of the screensaver is displayed during the first loop, the
object to be replaced with the replacement object; [0042 and 0043]and
displaying, during a second loop of the display loop, the first portion of the screensaver with the replacement object. ([0033] In response to a single user action, the cards 200 in a sequence 300 are successively displayed within the focus area 302. Where the sequence 300 is circular, the successive display of cards 200 may continue indefinitely until halted by the user by a subsequent action, as described more fully below.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, Lee and Leskelaut to include a displaying, during the first loop of the display loop, a second portion of the screensaver on the display device such that the first portion of the screensaver is positioned off-screen of the display device; displaying, during a second loop of the display loop, the first portion of the screensaver with the replacement object, in order to update replace content while that content is outside the displayed portion ([0042], Billmaire)
Claims 5, 12, 19: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the replacement object is a replacement interactive object, wherein the object to be replaced comprises an interactive component, and wherein replacing the object to be replaced further comprises: [0075]
replacing the interactive component with the replacement interactive object, wherein the
replacement interactive object is configured to be user-selectable; [0082]and
displaying additional content associated with the replacement interactive object responsive to receiving a user selection of the replacement interactive object. [0083 and 0084]
Claims 6, 13, 20: Lee discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the metadata further comprises a user personalization parameter, and wherein identifying the object to be placed further comprises:
identifying, based on the object type and the user personalization parameter, the object to be replaced in the identified layer. [0088]
Claims 7, 14: Lee discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the user personalization parameter comprises at least one of user browser history, user viewing history, user purchasing history, and user settings associated with the media device. [0084]
Claim(s) 2 - 4, 9 - 11, and 16 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2006/0155763) in view of Leskela et al. (US 2011/0246916) in further view of Billmaier et al. (US 2004/0181804) in further view of Park-Ekecs et al. (US 2014/0215383) hereinafter referred to as Park.
Claims 2, 9, 16: Lee discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein displaying the first portion of the screensaver comprises displaying the background layer at a first scrolling speed, the middle layer at a second scrolling speed, and the foreground layer at a third scrolling speed. However, Park discloses wherein displaying the first portion of the screensaver comprises displaying the background layer at a first scrolling speed, the middle layer at a second scrolling speed, and the foreground layer at a third scrolling speed. [0033]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, Lee, Leskela, Billmaier to include a wherein displaying the first portion of the screensaver comprises displaying the background layer at a first scrolling speed, the middle layer at a second scrolling speed, and the foreground layer at a third scrolling speed, in order to create the illusion of depth and increase visual immersion.
Claims 3, 10, 17: Lee discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first scrolling speed, the second scrolling speed, and the third scrolling speed are different from each other. However, Park discloses wherein the first scrolling speed, the second scrolling speed, and the third scrolling speed are different from each other. [0033]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, Lee, Leskela, Billmaier to include wherein the first scrolling speed, the second scrolling speed, and the third scrolling speed are different from each other i in order to create the illusion of depth and increase visual immersion.
Claims 4,11, 18: Lee discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, but explicitly does not disclose wherein at least two of the first scrolling speed, the second scrolling speed, and the third scrolling speed are equal. However, Park discloses wherein at least two of the first scrolling speed, the second scrolling speed, and the third scrolling speed are equal. [0035]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, Lee, Leskela, Billmaier to include wherein at least two of the first scrolling speed, the second scrolling speed, and the third scrolling speed are equal in order to create the illusion of depth and increase visual immersion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Berry et al. (US 2015/0245111) - A system for using metadata from a video signal to associate advertisements therewith, comprising (i) a segmentation system to divide the video signal into video clips, (ii) a digitizing system for digitizing the video clips, (iii) a feature extraction system for extracting audio and video features from each video clip, associating each audio feature with respective video clips, associating each video feature with respective video clips, and saving the audio and video features into an associated metadata file, (iv) a web interface to the feature extraction system for receiving the video clips, and (v) a database, wherein video signals and associated metadata files are stored and indexed, wherein the associated metadata file is provided when a video player requests the corresponding video signal, enabling selection of a relevant advertisement for presentment in conjunction with respective video clips based on the associated audio and video features of the respective video clip.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
