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 .
This action is in response to the arguments filed on 02/02/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14, and 16-23 are pending in the application and have been considered below.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 16--23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gates et al. (US 2010/0070917 A1, hereinafter referred to as Gates), in view of Jeffe et al. (US 2011/0225496 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jeffe), and further in view of EVANS et al. (US 2014/0325557 A1, hereinafter referred to as EVANS).
As to claim 1, Gates discloses a system for updating, on a user interface, recommendations in real-time based on user selection of media item recommendations provided via the user interface, the system comprising:
one or more hardware processors (Fig.1, element 120) configured by machine-readable instructions to:
receiving a user request to add a new concept (see e.g., selecting playlist generator module throughout including Fig 14A and [0157] and choose a song to create playlist in Fig 14b and [0158]),
causing a set of media item recommendations to be loaded on a user interface for presentation as a media item recommendation set to a user responsive to the user request to add the new concept (see e.g. Fig 14b wherein a set of media item recommendations is loaded on the user interface in response to the request to generate a playlist and Fig 14c wherein a set of media item recommendations is loaded on the user interface in response to the request to generate a playlist; wherein Examiner interprets the “playlist Songs” as “a media item recommendation set” ), the media item recommendation set comprising a set of recommendations loaded on an on-screen portion of the user interface and a set of recommendations loaded on an off-screen portion of the user interface, the on- screen user interface portion being visible to the user at a first time, and the off- screen user interface portion not being visible to the user at the first time (see e.g. Fig 14b wherein the other alphabetized songs are not visible and Fig 14c where it is understood that some items in the playlist are not displayed [i.e., not every playlist is exactly 7 songs. Scrolling to additional songs is understood as in [0158]. This is illustrated in Fig 14h wherein the playlist of Fig 14f is being edited and some of the playlist is off the screen to accommodate the user interface. Also, as in e.g., Fig 13D, not every playlist is exactly four songs long. Scrolling via the scrolling wheel would reveal any additional songs);
receiving a user selection of one or more recommendations of the on- screen recommendation set (see e.g., Abraham, In Our Nature chosen in Fig 14b resulting in Fig 14c and one or more in [0117]);
identifying, based on the user recommendation selection, one or more recommendations of the on-screen recommendation set that are not included in the user recommendation selection (see e.g., refresh playlist throughout including Fig 14c and [0159] wherein the seed track selection Abraham, In Our Nature remains and the other songs in Fig 14c are identified and replaced via the refresh playlist command and wherein the deification and replacement are based on those songs not being included in the one or more seed track selections as in [0117]) [as recommendations that do not convey the new concept, the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection being recommendations that are not selected by the user.]
However, Gates fails to explicitly teach:
as recommendations that do not convey the new concept, the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection being recommendations that are not selected by the user;
causing, based on the user recommendation selection, the off-screen recommendation set to be updated on the user interface during the presentation of the media item recommendation set; and
identifying. based on the user recommendation selection, at least one positive
example of one or more recommendations of the on-screen recommendation set that are included in the user recommendation selection,
identifying. as negative examples, the identified recommendations not included in
the user recommendation selection; and
generating an indication on the user interface that the concept has been learned
based on a threshold number of negative examples being identified during the
presentation of the media item recommendation set.
Jeffe, in combination with Gates, teaches:
as recommendations that do not convey the new concept, the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection being recommendations that are not selected by the user (paragraph [0007] …One or more subsequent user selections can be used to create a new media list and/or modify an existing media list….In a fourth example, the user can passively select the one or more pieces of media from the media list as the negative indication (i.e., do not convey) by skipping (i.e., not selected) and/or advancing to a next piece of media before an amount of time transpires (e.g., a song and/or video being played for less than twenty seconds);
causing, based on the user recommendation selection, the off-screen recommendation set to be updated on the user interface during the presentation of the media item recommendation set (see e.g., Figs 8-9, [0054]-[0057] wherein user selections of items cause new recommendations to be added to the playlist as indicated by element 8010 and element 9010 wherein e.g. element 9010 indicates 17 new songs added to the media list….one or more pieces of recommended media can be removed from the recommended media list based on one or more added or removed pieces of media to the playlist…, wherein Examiner interprets the “adding/removing” as updating);
identifying, based on the user recommendation selection, at least one positive example of one or more recommendations of the on-screen recommendation set that are included in the user recommendation selection (paragraphs [0007], the
user can actively select (e.g., by selecting a button and/or icon) one or more pieces of
media from a media list as a positive indication (i.e. positive example) associated with
the one or more pieces of media; Fig 9 wherein items in the visible portion of the screen
have been updated from those in Fig 8 based on based on the selection of #7 412);
identifying, as negative examples, the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection (paragraph [0007] In a fourth example, the user can passively select the one or more pieces of media from the media list as the negative indication (i.e. negative example) by skipping and/or advancing to a next piece of media before an amount of time transpires (e.g., a song and/or video being played for less than twenty seconds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gates to add updates to the system of Gates, as taught by Jeffe, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to indicate information associated with and/or identifying recommended pieces of media, as suggested by Jeffe, ([0055]).
However, Jeffe and Gates fail to explicitly teach:
generating an indication on the user interface that the concept has been learned
based on a threshold number of negative examples being identified during the
presentation of the media item recommendation set.
EVANS, in combination with Gates and Jeffe, teaches:
generating an indication on the user interface that the concept has been learned
based on a threshold number of negative examples being identified during the
presentation of the media item recommendation set (paragraphs [0133]- [0134] In one example, with respect to FIGS. 6A-6C, annotations corresponding to portions of Content Item 1 may be automatically obtained when a user initiates a presentation of
Content Item 1 (e.g., detection of the user's request to play Content Item 1 may trigger a request for the annotations). Playback of scenes of Content Item 1 may be skipped, fast forwarded, or sped up if the scenes are associated with an average rating of less than 4/5. In another use case, playback of scenes of Content Item 1 may be skipped, fast-forwarded, or sped up if the scenes are not deemed as funny by at least a threshold number (e.g., fixed number or percentage) of users that submit comments for the scenes. Users may, for example, indicate desired ratings (e.g., only 4/5 or higher), threshold numbers, or other parameter via user-configurable settings. Other modification related to the presentation may of course be implemented.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Gates and Jeffe to add a
threshold number to the combination system of Gates and Jeffe, as taught by EVANS,
above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would
be motivated to have content Items skipped, fast-forwarded, or sped up if the scenes are not deemed as funny by at least a threshold number, as suggested by EVANS, ([0134]).
As to claim 2, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, Jeffe, in combination with Gates, teaches wherein no removal, from the on-screen recommendation set loaded on the on-screen user interface portion visible to the user at the first time, of a recommendation of the on-screen recommendation set that is not included in the user recommendation selection occurs from the user recommendation selection (see Figs 7-8 of Jeffe wherein element 7712 is selected and no media items are removed from the visible screen from Fig 7 to Fig 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gates to add updates to the system of Gates, as taught by Jeffe, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to indicate information associated with and/or identifying recommended pieces of media, as suggested by Jeffe, ([0055]).
As to claim 3, which incorporates the rejection of claim 1, Gates teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
causing, based on the user recommendation selection, the on-screen recommendation set loaded on the on-screen user interface portion visible to the user at the first time to be updated on the user interface during the presentation of the media item recommendation set (see e.g., the refresh of Gates wherein Fig 14c and 14e show the before and after of a refresh wherein the refresh is based on the selected song Abraham in Our Nature; See also Jeffe in e.g. Fig 9 wherein items in the visible portion of the screen have been updated from those in Fig 8 based on based on the selection of element 7412).
However, Gates fails to explicitly teach wherein the updating of the on-screen recommendation set comprises:
removing one or more recommendations from the on-screen recommendation set loaded on the on-screen user interface portion visible to the user at the first time;
wherein the removal is configured to occur before receiving a user manipulation of the user interface that causes at least some of the off-screen user interface portion not visible to the user at the first time to become visible to the user.
Jeffe, in combination with Gates, teaches:
recommendation set comprises:
removing one or more recommendations from the on-screen recommendation set loaded on the on-screen user interface portion visible to the user at the first time (see [0057] of Jeffe wherein recommended pieces of media are removed from the recommended media list based on media added or removed from the playlist, and see Figs 7-9 wherein, in Fig 7, when element 7412 is added to the playlist [as shown in Fig 8], and then elements 7416 and 7420 are removed from the recommended media list as shown in Figs 8-9, and as described in [0057]);
wherein the removal is configured to occur before receiving a user manipulation of the user interface that causes at least some of the off-screen user interface portion not visible to the user at the first time to become visible to the user (see Figs 8-9 wherein no scrolling has occurred between Figs 8-9 therefore Jeffe meets the "configured to occur" [i.e., capable of] limitations of the claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gates to add updates to the system of Gates, as taught by Jeffe, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to indicate information associated with and/or identifying recommended pieces of media, as suggested by Jeffe, ([0055]).
As to claim 4, Gates discloses one or more computer-readable media comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause operations: comprising:
receiving a user request to add a new concept (see e.g., selecting playlist generator module throughout including Fig 14A and [0157] and choose a song to create playlist in Fig 14b and [0158]),
causing a set of media item recommendations to be loaded on a user interface for presentation as a media item recommendation set to a user responsive to the user request to add the concept (see e.g. Fig 14b wherein a set of media item recommendations is loaded on the user interface in response to the request to generate a playlist and Fig 14c wherein a set of media item recommendations is loaded on the user interface in response to the request to generate a playlist; wherein Examiner interprets the “playlist Songs” as “a media item recommendation set” ), the media item recommendation set comprising a set of recommendations loaded on an on-screen portion of the user interface and a set of recommendations loaded on an off-screen portion of the user interface, the on- screen user interface portion being visible to the user at a first time, and the off- screen user interface portion not being visible to the user at the first time (see e.g. Fig 14b wherein the other alphabetized songs are not visible and Fig 14c where it is understood that some items in the playlist are not displayed [i.e., not every playlist is exactly 7 songs. Scrolling to additional songs is understood as in [0158]. This is illustrated in Fig 14h wherein the playlist of Fig 14f is being edited and some of the playlist is off the screen to accommodate the user interface. Also, as in e.g., Fig 13D, not every playlist is exactly four songs long. Scrolling via the scrolling wheel would reveal any additional songs.);
receiving a user selection of one or more recommendations of the on- screen recommendation set (see e.g., Abraham, In Our Nature chosen in Fig 14b resulting in Fig 14c and one or more in [0117]);
identifying, based on the user recommendation selection, at least one positive recommendation of the set of recommendations loaded on the on-screen portion of the user interface and one or more recommendations of the on-screen recommendation set that are not included in the user recommendation selection [as negative recommendations that do not convey the new concept, the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection being recommendations that are not selected by the user] (see e.g., refresh playlist throughout including Fig 14c and [0159] wherein the seed track selection Abraham, In Our Nature remains and the other songs in Fig 14c are identified and replaced via the refresh playlist command and wherein the deification and replacement are based on those songs not being included in the one or more seed track selections as in [0117]).
However, Gates fails to explicitly teach:
[identifying, based on the user recommendation selection, at least one positive recommendation of the set of recommendations loaded on the on-screen portion of the user interface and one or more recommendations of the on-screen recommendation set that are not included in the user recommendation selection] as negative recommendations that do not convey the new concept, the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection being recommendations that are not selected by the user;
causing, based on the user recommendation selection, the off-screen recommendation set to be updated on the user interface during the presentation of the media item recommendation set; and
identify. as negative examples, the identified recommendations not included in
the user recommendation selection; and
generate an indication on the user interface that the concept has been learned
based on a threshold number of negative examples being identified during the
presentation of the media item recommendation set.
Jeffe, in combination with Gates, teaches:
[identifying, based on the user recommendation selection, at least one positive recommendation of the set of recommendations loaded on the on-screen portion of the user interface and one or more recommendations of the on-screen recommendation set that are not included in the user recommendation selection] as negative recommendations that do not convey the new concept, the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection being recommendations that are not selected by the user (paragraph [0007] …One or more subsequent user selections can be used to create a new media list and/or modify an existing media list….In a fourth example, the user can passively select the one or more pieces of media from the media list as the negative indication (i.e., do not convey) by skipping (i.e., not selected) and/or advancing to a next piece of media before an amount of time transpires (e.g., a song and/or video being played for less than twenty seconds); and
identify. as negative examples, the identified recommendations not included in
the user recommendation selection (paragraph [0007] In a fourth example, the user can passively select the one or more pieces of media from the media list as the negative indication (i.e. negative example) by skipping and/or advancing to a next piece of media before an amount of time transpires (e.g., a song and/or video being played for less than twenty seconds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gates to add updates to the system of Gates, as taught by Jeffe, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to indicate information associated with and/or identifying recommended pieces of media, as suggested by Jeffe, ([0055]).
EVANS, in combination with Gates and Jeffe, teaches:
generating an indication on the user interface that the concept has been learned
based on a threshold number of negative examples being identified during the
presentation of the media item recommendation set (paragraphs [0133]- [0134] In one example, with respect to FIGS. 6A-6C, annotations corresponding to portions of Content Item 1 may be automatically obtained when a user initiates a presentation of
Content Item 1 (e.g., detection of the user's request to play Content Item 1 may trigger a request for the annotations). Playback of scenes of Content Item 1 may be skipped, fast forwarded, or sped up if the scenes are associated with an average rating of less than 4/5. In another use case, playback of scenes of Content Item 1 may be skipped, fast-forwarded, or sped up if the scenes are not deemed as funny by at least a threshold number (e.g., fixed number or percentage) of users that submit comments for the scenes. Users may, for example, indicate desired ratings (e.g., only 4/5 or higher), threshold numbers, or other parameter via user-configurable settings. Other modification related to the presentation may of course be implemented.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Gates and Jeffe to add a
threshold number to the combination system of Gates and Jeffe, as taught by EVANS,
above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would
be motivated to have content Items skipped, fast-forwarded, or sped up if the scenes are not deemed as funny by at least a threshold number, as suggested by EVANS, ([0134]).
As to claim 5, which incorporates the rejection of claim 4, Jeffe, in combination with Gates, teaches wherein no removal, from the on-screen recommendation set loaded on the on-screen user interface portion visible to the user at the first time, of a recommendation of the on-screen recommendation set that is not included in the user recommendation selection occurs from the user recommendation selection (see Figs 7-8 of Jeffe wherein element 7712 is selected and no media items are removed from the visible screen from Fig 7 to Fig 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gates to add updates to the system of Gates, as taught by Jeffe, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to indicate information associated with and/or identifying recommended pieces of media, as suggested by Jeffe, ([0055]).
As to claim 6, which incorporates the rejection of claim 4, Gates teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
cause, based on the user recommendation selection, the on-screen recommendation set loaded on the on-screen user interface portion visible to the user at the first time to be updated on the user interface during the presentation of the media item recommendation set (see e.g., the refresh of Gates wherein Fig 14c and 14e show the before and after of a refresh wherein the refresh is based on the selected song Abraham in Our Nature; See also Jeffe in e.g. Fig 9 wherein items in the visible portion of the screen have been updated from those in Fig 8 based on based on the selection of element 7412).
However, Gates fails to explicitly teach wherein the updating of the on-screen recommendation set comprises removing one or more recommendations from the on-screen recommendation set loaded on the on-screen user interface portion visible to the user at the first time;
wherein the removal is configured to occur before receiving a user manipulation of the user interface that causes at least some of the off-screen user interface portion not visible to the user at the first time to become visible to the user.
Jeffe, in combination with Gates, teaches wherein the updating of the on-screen recommendation set comprises:
removing one or more recommendations from the on-screen recommendation set loaded on the on-screen user interface portion visible to the user at the first time (see 0057 of Jeffe wherein recommended pieces of media are removed from the recommended media list based on media added or removed from the playlist, and see Figs 7-9 wherein, in Fig 7, when element 7412 is added to the playlist [as shown in Fig 8], and then elements 7416 and 7420 are removed from the recommended media list as shown in Figs 8-9, and as described in [0057]);
wherein the removal is configured to occur before receiving a user manipulation of the user interface that causes at least some of the off-screen user interface portion not visible to the user at the first time to become visible to the user (see Figs 8-9 wherein no scrolling has occurred between Figs 8-9 therefore Jeffe meets the "configured to occur" [i.e., capable of] limitations of the claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gates to add updates to the system of Gates, as taught by Jeffe, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to indicate information associated with and/or identifying recommended pieces of media, as suggested by Jeffe, ([0055]).
As to claim 8, which incorporates the rejection of claim 4, Gates teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
cause the off-screen recommendation set to he updated by causing, based on the user recommendation selection, the off-screen recommendation set to be updated on the user interface (see e.g., the refresh of Gates wherein Fig 14c and 14e show the before and after of a refresh wherein the refresh is based on the selected song Abraham in Our Nature; See also Jeffe in e.g. Fig 9 wherein items in the visible portion of the screen have been updated from those in Fig 8 based on based on the selection of element 7412).
However, Gates fails to explicitly teach
wherein the updating of the off-screen recommendation set is configured to occur before receiving a user manipulation of the user interface that causes at least some of the off-screen user interface portion not visible to the user at the first time to become visible to the user.
Jeffe, in combination with Gates, teaches:
wherein the updating of the off-screen recommendation set is configured to occur before receiving a user manipulation of the user interface that causes at least some of the off-screen user interface portion not visible to the user at the first time to become visible to the user (see [0057] of Jeffe wherein recommended pieces of media are removed from the recommended media list based on media added or removed from the playlist, and see Figs 7-9 wherein, in Fig 7, when element 7412 is added to the playlist [as shown in Fig 8], and then elements 7416 and 7420 are removed from the recommended media list as shown in Figs 8-9, and as described in [0057]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gates to add updates to the system of Gates, as taught by Jeffe, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to indicate information associated with and/or identifying recommended pieces of media, as suggested by Jeffe, ([0055]).
As to claim 10, which incorporates the rejection of claim 4, Gates teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
identify one or more new recommendations as having one or more characteristics similar to one or more recommendations of the on-screen recommendation set that are included in the user recommendation selection (see similarity throughout Gates including the abstract and elements 806 and 808 of Fig 8).
However, Gates fails to explicitly teach:
cause the off-screen recommendation set to be updated on the user interface by causing the off-screen recommendation set to be updated with the new recommendations during the presentation of the media item recommendation set.
Jeffe, in combination with Gates, teaches:
cause the off-screen recommendation set to be updated on the user interface by causing the off-screen recommendation set to be updated with the new recommendations during the presentation of the media item recommendation set
(see Figs 8-9 of Jeffe including elements 8010 and 9010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gates to add updates to the system of Gates, as taught by Jeffe, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to indicate information associated with and/or identifying recommended pieces of media, as suggested by Jeffe, ([0055]).
As to claim 12, which incorporates the rejection of claim 4, Jeffe, in combination with Gates, teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
cause the off-screen recommendation set to be updated on the user interface by causing, based on the user recommendation selection, one or more recommendations of the off-screen recommendation set to be replaced with one or more new recommendations during the presentation of the media item recommendation set (see Jeffe e.g., Figs 8-9 and [0057] and [0067] and claims 3-4 wherein media items can be removed from the media list [which includes on and off screen portions] such as element 7416 and element 420 in the before and after of Figs 8-9 and new items added to replace these removed items as indicated by element 9010 wherein the new items are replaced based on items being selected [such as element 7412].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gates to add updates to the system of Gates, as taught by Jeffe, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to indicate information associated with and/or identifying recommended pieces of media, as suggested by Jeffe, ([0055]).
As to claim 14, which incorporates the rejection of claim 4, Jeffe, in combination with Gates, teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
identify, as positive examples, based on the user recommendation selection, one or more recommendations of the on-screen recommendation set that are included in the user recommendation selection (paragraph [0051], Figs. 7 & 8, wherein element 7412 is selected as a positive example); and
generate an indication on the user interface that the concept has been learned based on a threshold number of positive examples being identified during the presentation of the media item recommendation set (paragraph [0055] ...Fig 9 wherein in response to element 7412 being selected [one being the threshold] as a positive example, an indication of a new concept (a new recommended playlist to add to the existing recommended playlist) is indicated by element 9010).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gates to add updates to the system of Gates, as taught by Jeffe, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to indicate information associated with and/or identifying recommended pieces of media, as suggested by Jeffe, ([0055]).
As to claim 16, which incorporates the rejection of claim 4, Gates teaches wherein the user request to add the concept comprises a user-provided definition of the concept, the user-provided definition comprising one or more words describing the concept (see Gates e.g., Titles of playlists in Fig 14a).
As to claim 18, which incorporates the rejection of claim 4, Gates teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
cause the media item recommendation set to be loaded on the user interface by causing graphical representations of recommended media items to be loaded on the user interface for presentation to the user (see Gates e.g., any of the figures which have a column of graphical block representations of media items in the playlist),
wherein the recommended media items comprise one or more of images, animations, videos, or audios (see song playlists throughout Gates and Jeffe).
As to claim 19, which incorporates the rejection of claim 4, Gates teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
cause a set of concept categories to be presented on the user interface (see Gates e.g. Fig 14b wherein existing playlists are shown and wherein a playlist is a song category [a song is a concept]. See also the bottom of Fig 14a wherein concept categories such as playlists, artists, albums, podcasts, etc. are displayed…); and
receive a user selection of a concept category of the concept category set (select an existing playlist or select the playlist category at the bottom of Fig 14a),
wherein the user request to add the concept is a request to add the concept to the user-selected concept category (see Gates e.g., Fig 14c wherein existing playlists can be edited and refreshed. See also the bottom of Fig 14a wherein concept categories such as playlists, artists, albums podcasts, etc. are displayed and wherein playlists have been selected and wherein the request is a request to add a new playlist in the playlist category.)
As to claim 20, which incorporates the rejection of claim 4, Gates teaches wherein concept categories of the concept category set are represented as category tiles on the user interface, and wherein concept categories of the concept category set comprises one or more of recently created concepts, people, places, things, times, favorites, interests, or categories provided by other users (see Gates e.g., Fig 14a wherein the concept categories comprise things such as Chillits and store, places such as the garden state, times such as 2007 and 9-20-07, etc. Each category also comprises songs which are things. Since recently is not defined, any one of the categories such as the newest can be considered a recently created concept. See also the bottom of the screen such as playlists, artists, albums, podcasts, etc. which include things [playlists albums artists podcasts], interests [playlists albums artists podcasts], people [artists], etc.).
As to claim 21, Gates discloses a method comprising:
receiving a user request to add a new concept (see e.g., selecting playlist generator module throughout including Fig 14A and [0157] and choose a song to create playlist in Fig 14b and [0158]),
causing a set of media item recommendations to be loaded on a user interface for presentation as a media item recommendation set to a user responsive to the user request to add the concept (see e.g. Fig 14b wherein a set of media item recommendations is loaded on the user interface in response to the request to generate a playlist and Fig 14c wherein a set of media item recommendations is loaded on the user interface in response to the request to generate a playlist; wherein Examiner interprets the “playlist Songs” as “a media item recommendation set” ), the media item recommendation set comprising a set of recommendations loaded on an on-screen portion of the user interface and a set of recommendations loaded on an off-screen portion of the user interface, the on- screen user interface portion being visible to the user at a first time, and the off- screen user interface portion not being visible to the user at the first time (see e.g. Fig 14b wherein the other alphabetized songs are not visible and Fig 14c where it is understood that some items in the playlist are not displayed [i.e., not every playlist is exactly 7 songs. Scrolling to additional songs is understood as in [0158]. This is illustrated in Fig 14h wherein the playlist of Fig 14f is being edited and some of the playlist is off the screen to accommodate the user interface. Also, as in e.g., Fig 13D, not every playlist is exactly four songs long. Scrolling via the scrolling wheel would reveal any additional songs.);
receiving a user selection of one or more recommendations of the on- screen recommendation set (see e.g., Abraham, In Our Nature chosen in Fig 14b resulting in Fig 14c and one or more in [0117]);
identifying, based on the user recommendation selection, at least one positive recommendation of the set of recommendations loaded on the on-screen portion of the user interface and one or more recommendations of the on-screen recommendation set that are not included in the user recommendation selection [as negative recommendations that do not convey the new concept, the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection being recommendations that are not selected by the user] (see e.g., refresh playlist throughout including Fig 14c and [0159] wherein the seed track selection Abraham, In Our Nature remains and the other songs in Fig 14c are identified and replaced via the refresh playlist command and wherein the deification and replacement are based on those songs not being included in the one or more seed track selections as in [0117]).
However, Gates fails to explicitly teach:
[identifying, based on the user recommendation selection, at least one positive recommendation of the set of recommendations loaded on the on-screen portion of the user interface and one or more recommendations of the on-screen recommendation set that are not included in the user recommendation selection]
as negative recommendations that do not convey the new concept, the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection being recommendations that are not selected by the user; and
causing, based on the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection, the off-screen recommendation set to be updated on the off-screen user interface portion;
identifying. as negative examples, the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection; and
generating an indication on the user interface that the concept has been learned
based on a threshold number of negative examples being identified during the
presentation of the media item recommendation set.
Jeffe, in combination with Gates, teaches:
[identifying, based on the user recommendation selection, at least one positive recommendation of the set of recommendations loaded on the on-screen portion of the user interface and one or more recommendations of the on-screen recommendation set that are not included in the user recommendation selection]
as recommendations that do not convey the new concept, the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection being recommendations that are not selected by the user (paragraph [0007] …One or more subsequent user selections can be used to create a new media list and/or modify an existing media list….In a fourth example, the user can passively select the one or more pieces of media from the media list as the negative indication (i.e., do not convey) by skipping (i.e., not selected) and/or advancing to a next piece of media before an amount of time transpires (e.g., a song and/or video being played for less than twenty seconds);
identifying, based on the user recommendation selection, at least one positive recommendation of the set of recommendations loaded on the on-screen portion of the user interface and one or more recommendations of the on-screen recommendation set that are not included in the user recommendation selection as negative recommendations that do not convey the concept, the identified negative recommendations not included in the user recommendation
selection being recommendations that are not selected by the user (paragraphs [0007], the user can actively select (e.g., by selecting a button and/or icon) one or more pieces of media from a media list as a positive indication (i.e. positive example) associated with the one or more pieces of media; Fig 9 wherein items in the visible portion of the screen have been updated from those in Fig 8 based on based on the selection of #7412. In a fourth example, the user can passively select the one or more pieces of media from the media list as the negative indication (i.e. negative example) by skipping and/or advancing to a next piece of media before an amount of time transpires (e.g., a song and/or video being played for less than twenty seconds),
causing, based on the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection, the off-screen recommendation set to be updated on the off-screen user interface portion (see e.g., Figs 8-9, [0054]-[0057] wherein user selections of items cause new recommendations to be added to the playlist as indicated by element 8010 and element 9010 wherein e.g. element 9010 indicates 17 new songs added to the media list….one or more pieces of recommended media can be removed from the recommended media list based on one or more added or removed pieces of media to the playlist…, wherein Examiner interprets the “adding/removing” as updating); and
identifying. as negative examples, the identified recommendations not included in
the user recommendation selection (paragraph [0007] In a fourth example, the user can passively select the one or more pieces of media from the media list as the negative indication (i.e. negative example) by skipping and/or advancing to a next piece of media before an amount of time transpires (e.g., a song and/or video being played for less than twenty seconds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gates to add updates to the system of Gates, as taught by Jeffe, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to indicate information associated with and/or identifying recommended pieces of media, as suggested by Jeffe, ([0055]).
EVANS, in combination with Gates and Jeffe, teaches:
generating an indication on the user interface that the concept has been learned
based on a threshold number of negative examples being identified during the
presentation of the media item recommendation set (paragraphs [0133]- [0134] In one example, with respect to FIGS. 6A-6C, annotations corresponding to portions of Content Item 1 may be automatically obtained when a user initiates a presentation of
Content Item 1 (e.g., detection of the user's request to play Content Item 1 may trigger a request for the annotations). Playback of scenes of Content Item 1 may be skipped, fast forwarded, or sped up if the scenes are associated with an average rating of less than 4/5. In another use case, playback of scenes of Content Item 1 may be skipped, fast-forwarded, or sped up if the scenes are not deemed as funny by at least a threshold number (e.g., fixed number or percentage) of users that submit comments for the scenes. Users may, for example, indicate desired ratings (e.g., only 4/5 or higher), threshold numbers, or other parameter via user-configurable settings. Other modification related to the presentation may of course be implemented.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of
the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Gates and Jeffe to add a
threshold number to the combination system of Gates and Jeffe, as taught by EVANS,
above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would
be motivated to have content Items skipped, fast-forwarded, or sped up if the scenes are not deemed as funny by at least a threshold number, as suggested by EVANS, ([0134]).
As to claim 22, which incorporates the rejection of claim 21, Jeffe, in combination with Gates, teaches wherein no removal, from the on-screen recommendation set loaded on the on-screen user interface portion visible to the user at the first time, of a recommendation of the on-screen recommendation set that is not included in the user recommendation selection occurs from the user recommendation selection (see Figs 7-8 of Jeffe wherein element 7712 is selected and no media items are removed from the visible screen from Fig 7 to Fig 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gates to add updates to the system of Gates, as taught by Jeffe, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to indicate information associated with and/or identifying recommended pieces of media, as suggested by Jeffe, ([0055]).
As to claim 23, which incorporates the rejection of claim 21, Gates teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
causing, based on the user recommendation selection, the on-screen recommendation set loaded on the on-screen user interface portion visible to the user at the first time to be updated on the user interface during the presentation of the media item recommendation set (see e.g., the refresh of Gates wherein Fig 14c and 14e show the before and after of a refresh wherein the refresh is based on the selected song Abraham in Our Nature; See also Jeffe in e.g. Fig 9 wherein items in the visible portion of the screen have been updated from those in Fig 8 based on based on the selection of element 7412).
However, Gates fails to explicitly teach wherein the updating of the on-screen recommendation set comprises
wherein the updating of the on-screen recommendation set comprises removing one or more recommendations from the on-screen recommendation set loaded on the on-screen user interface portion visible to the user at the first time
Jeffe, in combination with Gates, teaches:
recommendation set comprises:
wherein the updating of the on-screen recommendation set comprises removing one or more recommendations from the on-screen recommendation set loaded on the on-screen user interface portion visible to the user at the first time
(see 0057 of Jeffe wherein recommended pieces of media are removed from the recommended media list based on media added or removed from the playlist, and see Figs 7-9 wherein, in Fig 7, when element 7412 is added to the playlist [as shown in Fig 8], and then elements 7416 and 7420 are removed from the recommended media list as shown in Figs 8-9, and as described in [0057]);
wherein the removal is configured to occur before receiving a user manipulation of the user interface that causes at least some of the off-screen user interface portion not visible to the user at the first time to become visible to the user (see Figs 8-9 wherein no scrolling has occurred between Figs 8-9 therefore Jeffe meets the "configured to occur" [i.e., capable of] limitations of the claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gates to add updates to the system of Gates, as taught by Jeffe, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to indicate information associated with and/or identifying recommended pieces of media, as suggested by Jeffe, ([0055]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gates et al. (US 2010/0070917 A1, hereinafter referred to as Gates), in view of Jeffe et al. (US 2011/0225496 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jeffe), and further in view of EVANS et al. (US 2014/0325557 A1, hereinafter referred to as EVANS), and Reed et al. (US 2012/0297429 A1, hereinafter referred to as Reed).
As to claim 9, which incorporates the rejection of claim 8, Reed, in combination with Gates, Jeffe and EVANS teaches wherein the user manipulation corresponds to a user request to bring on-screen on the user interface at least some of the off-screen user interface portion not visible to the user at the first time, the user request being initiated based on user scrolling (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], [0056] and [0060], enables users to view additional search result icons 404 by scrolling through a screen of displayed search result icons 404; Scrolling through a Web page of search result icons 404 typically causes the system 100 to render a new Web page of search result icons 404).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Gates, Jeffe and EVANS to add scrolling to the combination system of Gates, Jeffe and EVANS, as taught by Reed, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to enable displaying multiple screens, as suggested by Reed, ([0053]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gates et al. (US 2010/0070917 A1, hereinafter referred to as Gates), in view of Jeffe et al. (US 2011/0225496 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jeffe), and further in view of EVANS et al. (US 2014/0325557 A1, hereinafter referred to as EVANS), and Svendsen (US 2014/0122590 A1, hereinafter referred to as Svendsen).
As to claim 11, which incorporates the rejection of claim 10, Svendsen, in combination with Gates, Jeffe and EVANS, teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
identify the new recommendations for updating the media item recommendation set based on the new recommendations being more similar to one or more recommendations of the on-screen recommendation set that are included in the user recommendation selection than one or more recommendations of the on-screen recommendation set that are not included in the user recommendation selection (paragraphs [0007], "candidate media item" can refer to media items selected for consideration, scoring, and/or possible recommendation; [0011], determining that an update criteria (i.e., “new similar recommendations and recommendation set that are not included”) has been satisfied the method further includes executing an update function to determine updated media item recommendations. The method also includes storing the updated media item recommendations in a recommendation list for future use; [0032], updating recommendations for a media item; [0044], having the same or similar features. [0076], recommendation list was last updated; [0087], media preference similarities, media collection similarities, physical location, heavy influencer status, and the like; [0104], [0104] and [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Gates, Jeffe and EVANS to add a media item recommendation updating to the combination system of Gates, Jeffe and EVANS, as taught by Svendsen, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to store the updated media item recommendations in a recommendation list for future use, as suggested by Svendsen, ([0011]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gates et al. (US 2010/0070917 A1, hereinafter referred to as Gates), in view of Jeffe et al. (US 2011/0225496 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jeffe), and further in view of EVANS et al. (US 2014/0325557 A1, hereinafter referred to as EVANS), and Mikawa (US 20040170386 A1, hereinafter referred to as Mikawa).
As to claim 17, which incorporates the rejection of claim 4, Gates teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
cause the media item recommendation set to be loaded on the user interface by causing graphical representations of recommended media items to be loaded on the user interface for presentation to the user (see Gates e.g., any of the figures which have a column of graphical block representations of media items in the playlist).
However, Gates, Jeffe and EVANS fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the graphical representations of the recommended media items comprise thumbnail images of the recommended media items.
Mikawa, in combination with Gates, Jeffe and EVANS, teaches:
wherein the graphical representations of the recommended media items comprise thumbnail images of the recommended media items (see e.g., thumbnail images representing media items in the playlists of e.g., Figs 4-12; paragraphs [0013], [0054], [0063]- [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the combination system of Gates, Jeffe and EVANS to add a thumbnail image to the combination system of Gates, Jeffe and EVANS, as taught by Mikawa, above. The modification would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill would be motivated to control the content-list display section, as suggested by Mikawa, ([0094]).
Response to Applicant’s arguments
Applicant's arguments on file on 02/02/2026 with respect to prior art rejection of claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 16--23 have been considered and are partially moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
.
Argument (pages14-16):
Applicant appears to assert that claim 1 has been amended to omit the steps highlighted above concerning identifying at least one negative example of one or more recommendations of the onscreen recommendation set, reordering the off-screen recommendation set and the on-screen recommendation such that the user does not see the reordering of the off-screen recommendation, and receiving a user selection indicating user satisfaction that the new concept has been learned based on a plurality of positive examples being presented via the user interface.
These three steps have been replaced with the elements of identifying, as negative examples. The identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection and generating an indication on the user interface that the concept has been learned based on a threshold number of negative examples being identified during the presentation of the media item recommendation set. Applicant respectfully submits that Gates fails to teach or even suggest such elements which are now required by claims 1, 4 and 21. Gates instead discloses that when a similarity score is sufficiently low then it is not included in a similarity table, and that the threshold for determining if a similarity score is sufficiently low or high maybe dynamic or static.
Applicant respectfully submits that Jeffe does not cure the deficiencies of Gates
explained above. Jeffe relates to the field of creating suggested playlists for users, and more specifically to automatically creating suggested play lists for users. The suggested playlists are created for a user based on one or more selection criteria or preferences of the user and may include local and/or remote pieces of media. Although Jeffe discloses that a user can actively or passively select one or more pieces of media from a media list as a positive indication associated with the one or more pieces of media, and that the user can also actively or passively select one or more pieces of media from a media list as a negative indication associated with the one or more pieces of media, Applicant respectfully asserts that Jeffe fails to teach or suggest identifying, as negative examples, the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection and generating an indication on the user interface that the concept
has been learned based on a threshold number of negative examples being identified during the presentation of the media item recommendation set, as now required by claims 1, 4 and 21.
Jeffe instead teaches that one or more pieces of recommended media can be removed
from the recommended media list based on one or more added or removed pieces of media to the playlist, and as an example references items 7416 and 7420 (see FIG. 8). These items can be removed from the recommended media list when the piece of media associated with element 7412 is added to the playlist.8 Applicant respectfully submits that such functionality is distinctly different from the elements of identifying. as negative examples, the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection and generating an indication on the user interface that the concept has been learned based on a threshold number of negative examples
being identified during the presentation of the media item recommendation set, as claimed.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 4 and 21 are patentably distinct from Gates and Jeffe, whether taken alone or in combination. In addition, dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18-23 should also be allowable for at least the same reasons.
Applicant notes that Ivanov, U.S. Published Application No 2018/0240023 (hereinafter
"Ivanov") was cited for allegedly rendering obvious now canceled claim 15, which was directed to identifying negative examples as those recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection, and then generating an indication on the user interface that the concept has been learned based on a threshold number of negative examples being identified during the presentation of the media item recommendation set. Applicant respectfully traverses.
Ivanov is directed to machine-learning algorithms and more specifically to methods and
systems for selecting targeted content by a machine learning algorithm. Like Gates and Jeffe,
Applicant respectfully submits that Ivanov fails to teach or suggest identifying, as negative examples, the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection and then generating an indication on the user interface that the concept has been learned based on a threshold number of negative examples being identified during the presentation of the media item recommendation set, as claimed by claims 1, 4 and 21.
Ivanov instead discloses that positive training examples and negative training
examples may be retrieved and sent to a machine learning algorithm that includes a learning system and a model. Ivanov teaches that, in some embodiments, the negative training examples for a particular targeted content may only be sent to the machine learning algorithm if a predetermined threshold number of indications for blocking the particular targeted content have been received from a predetermined number of users. The learning system of Ivanov may take as an input the positive training examples and the negative training examples to output the model, and the goal of the learning system may be to create the model or rule based on the positive training examples and the negative training examples (comprising the blocked targeted content by any given user), wherein the model makes predictions on the type of targeted content based on the plurality of attributes of the targeted content. Applicant respectfully contends that such functionality is distinctly different from that which is claimed. Specifically, Ivanov does not teach or suggest to first identify negative examples as the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection, and then to generate an indication on the user interface that the concept has been learned based on a threshold number of negative examples being identified during the presentation of the media item recommendation set. Applicant therefore respectfully submits that claims 1, 4 and 12 are patentably distinct from Gates, Jeffe and Ivanov, whether taken alone or in any combination. In addition, dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18-23 should also be allowable for at least the same reasons.
Thus, in view of the above amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully requests
withdrawal of the Section 103 rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18-23.
Examiner response
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jeffe teaches identifying, as negative examples, the identified recommendations not included in the user recommendation selection (paragraph [0007], as explained above).
Applicant’s arguments are partially moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection (IVANOV et al. (US 2018/0240023 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABABACAR SECK whose telephone number is (571)270-7146. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M.-6:00 P.M..
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached on 571-270-5871. 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.
/ABABACAR SECK/Examiner, Art Unit 2147
/VIKER A LAMARDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2147
Prosecution Insights