DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is in response to amendment filed on 12/16/2025, in which claims 21 – 24, 26 – 31, 35, and 41 – 42 was amended and claims 21 – 24, 26 – 38, and 40 - 42 was presented for further examination.
3. Claims 21 – 24, 26 – 38, and 40 - 42 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21 – 24, 26 – 38, and 40 - 42 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
5. Claims 21 – 23, 26 – 27, 30 – 37, and 40 – 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2016/0142775 A1), in view of West et al (US 2011/0239253 A1), and in view of Lewis et al (US 2016/0323619 A1).
As per claim 21, Kim et al (US 2016/0142775 A1) discloses,
A method comprising: identifying, by a server, media content viewing history of a plurality of users over a specified time range (para.[0123]; “listening history of each
user at intervals of a preset period ( e.g. daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or the like)”).
wherein the media content viewing history comprises a plurality of genres and a plurality of channels accessed by the plurality of users within the specified time range (para.[0012]; “each user group into viewing history information for each of the channel groups” and para.[0123]; “listening history of each user at intervals of a preset period ( e.g. daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or the like)”).
identifying, from the plurality of users, a cluster of users associated with both (a) a particular group of genres and (b) a particular group of channels by analyzing the media content viewing history to determine that, within the specified time range, each user of the cluster of users has accessed (para.[0002]; “analyze viewing history patterns of users for respective channel groups”, para.[0005]; “viewing patterns may vary in respective time slots every day”, para.[0012]; “each channel group for each user group, based on the viewing history information for each channel group”, and para.[0019]; “channel group, to which a channel currently selected by each
user group belongs, to the corresponding user group”, para.[0123]; “listening history of each user at intervals of a preset period ( e.g. daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or the like)”).
media content items of the particular group of genres of the plurality of genres (para.[0068]; “channel information such as genres, channel names, and channel descriptions, obtained from the EPG and the meta-information of channels”).
and media content items from the particular group of channels of the plurality of channels (para.[0012]; “a channel group generation unit for calculating a similarity between channels”, para.[0013]; “metainformation for each channel, meta-information of content broadcasted on each channel ……. a channel attribute generation unit for generating attribute information of each channel”).
Kim does not specifically disclose creating a composite text label for the cluster of users comprising: an indication the particular group of genres; and an indication of the particular group of channels; storing the composite text label in association with the cluster of users.
However, West et al (US 2011/0239253 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
creating a composite text label for the cluster of users (para.[0080]; “ create composite audio-video clips. The composites may be from a single program, or from multiple programs that share one or more common traits, or that are "favorites" of a particular user or group of users” and para.[0093]; “user may assign the composite channel a custom channel number (regardless of the content sources used to create the composite content) and/or a custom position within a channel lineup in an electronic program guide”).
comprising: a textual indication the particular group of genres and a textual indication of the particular group of channels (para.[0091]; “generating a user-defined composite channel that includes content from various television providers and other sources …. the user accesses an appropriate menu or wizard for creating the composite channel” and para.[0092]; “user makes selections for the new composite
channel. This may involve selecting channels, programs, genres of content, content descriptors (e.g., to be compared against tags or other metadata), etc”, and para.[0093]; “user may assign the composite channel a custom channel number (regardless of the content sources used to create the composite content) and/or a custom position within
a channel lineup in an electronic program guide”).
storing the composite text label in association with the cluster of users (para.[0093]; “new composite channel (although this may be done prior to or during the content selection process) and saves his/her selections. This record may be saved to the set-top box and/or server”).
and displaying on a graphical user interface generated for presentation to a user (Fig.5, para.[0015]; “on-screen channel guide for an Internet-based television content delivery system”, para.[0041]; “users may be provided the ability to designate custom channel groups. These may be channels having similar content (sports, news, etc.) or may correspond to some other user-desired grouping”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate the process of creating a composite channel of the system of West into tracking of viewing history of the system of Kim to deliver content or made content available in a custom viewing schedule.
Neither Kim nor West specifically disclose the composite text label with a visual representation of the cluster of users.
However, Lewis et al (US 2016/0323619 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
storing the composite text label in association with the cluster of users (NOTE: para.[0032]; “Data store 150 may include any combination of subscription data 155 and channel data” and para.[0033]; “etc.). For a composite channel, channel data 160 may also include identifiers of one or more component channels associated with the composite channel. The channel data 160 may also include data indicative of an interest of a user in a channel ……. The data indicative …….. information about others users who are similar to the user”).
the composite text label with a visual representation of the cluster of users (para.[0054]; “composite channel may include a set of channels that other users who
have subscribed to the component channel also watch”, para.[0085]; “GUI contain a search tool ( e.g., to search for a channel or media item of interest), an upload tool ( e.g., to upload a new media item to a content platform), a menu (e.g., to navigate to different GUis of the content platform), a user identifier”, para.[0086]; “user home GUI 500 can include a user feed”, and para.[0088]; “The information of activities of others (e.g., channels, social contacts, celebrities, etc.) can be presented as one or more user feed items 510A-510N. The user feed items 510A-510N can include an activity message, a thumbnail”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate channel recommendation of the system of Lewis into the process of creating a composite channel of the system of West to identify a compact means of accessing user program viewing history by channel in order to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to quickly identify relevant clusters of media content.
As per claim 22, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Kim et al (US 2016/0142775 A1) discloses,,
further comprising pattern mining, by the server, to identify a pattern of frequently accessed channels from the plurality of channels (para.[0002]; “analyze viewing history patterns of users for respective channel groups”).
As per claim 23, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated and further Kim et al (US 2016/0142775 A1) discloses,
further comprising pattern mining, by the server, to identify a pattern of frequently accessed genres from the plurality of genres (para.[0139]; “collect the sound source listening history information of the user from the system of a sound source provision site accessed by the user”).
As per claim 26, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, and further Lewis et al (US 2016/0323619 A1) discloses,
further comprising displaying on the graphical user interface generated for presentation to the user, from the plurality of users, advertising related to the particular group of genres (Fig.5)
As per claim 27, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, and further Lewis et al (US 2016/0323619 A1) discloses,
further comprising displaying on the graphical user interface generated for presentation to the user, from the plurality of users, advertising related to the composite text label (Fig.5)
As per claim 30, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, and further Lewis et al (US 2016/0323619 A1) discloses,
wherein the composite text label is used to track user engagement behavior (para.[0058]; “create a composite channel based on an activity of a user”).
As per claim 41, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, and further Lewis et al (US 2016/0323619 A1) discloses,
wherein the creating the composite text label for the cluster of users comprises: concatenating the indication of the particular group of genres and the indication of the particular group of channels to generate the composite text label (para.[0022]; “composite channel is a channel that includes at least one individual ("component") channel along with additional content (e.g., another component channel) …….. the composite channel is a compilation of channels from multiple channel curators”).
Claims 31, 32 – 33, 34, 40, and 42 are system claim corresponding to method claims 21, 26 – 27, and 23 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 21, 26 – 27, 23, 30, and 41 respectively above.
Claims 35 and 36 - 37 are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to method claims 21 and 28 - 30 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 21 and 28 - 30 respectively above.
6. Claims 24, 28 – 29, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2016/0142775 A1), in view of West et al (US 2011/0239253 Al), in view of Lewis et al (US 2016/0323619 A1), and further view of Arling et al (US 2014/0047467 A1).
As per claim 24, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, Kim et al (US 2016/0142775 A1), West et al (US 2011/0239253 Al), and Lewis et al (US 2016/0323619 A1) does not disclose determining a number of times a media device associated with a user from the cluster of users accessed the media content item, wherein the media content items are identified by media content identifiers.
However, Arling et al (US 2014/0047467 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
further comprising determining a number of times a media device associated with a user from the cluster of users accessed the media content item, wherein the media content items are identified by media content identifiers (claim 1; “providing an order to listings within the program channel guide as a function of the cumulative access times of each of the plurality of program channels of which access was captured as maintained within the program channel access history for the one or more of the plurality of users”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate optimization of content listing based on user viewing history of the system of Arling into the process of creating a composite channel of the system of West and channel recommendation of the system of Lewis in order to identify frequency of access of particular media content by users' devices in the system of Kim.
As per claim 28, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, Kim et al (US 2016/0142775 A1), West et al (US 2011/0239253 Al), and Lewis et al (US 2016/0323619 A1) does not disclose determining an average viewing history based on a number of times users of the cluster of users accessed any media content item; and selecting one or more sample users based on their viewing histories being similar to the average viewing history.
However, Arling et al (US 2014/0047467 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
further comprising: determining an average viewing history based on a number of times users of the cluster of users accessed any media content item; and selecting one or more sample users based on their viewing histories being similar to the average viewing history (fig.7 and para.[0040]; “Cumulative viewing time 710 for this user”; and claim 1; “cumulative access time of each of the plurality of channels of which access was captured as maintained within the program channel access history for the one or more of the plurality of users”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate optimization of content listing based on user viewing history of the system of Arling into the process of creating a composite channel of the system of West and channel recommendation of the system of Lewis in order to identify frequency of access of particular media content by users' devices in the system of Kim.
As per claim 29, the re rejection of claim 28 is incorporated, and further Arling et al (US 2014/0047467 A1) discloses,
wherein the creating composite text label for the cluster of users is based on at least one of the sample user or the average viewing history (claim 1; “cumulative access time of each of the plurality of channels of which access was captured as maintained within the program channel access history for the one or more of the plurality of users”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate optimization of content listing based on user viewing history of the system of Arling into the process of creating a composite channel of the system of West and program grouping by channel of the system of Walter to view content recorded in the viewing history of the system of Kim in order to identify population of user that access the content over a specific period of time.
Claims 38 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to method claim 28, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 28 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUGUSTINE KUNLE OBISESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2020. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/AUGUSTINE K. OBISESAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2156
3/16/2026