DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments filed 1-27-26 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach of suggest “causing at a second time based on an interaction with the interface, an output of the first image and an output of the second image to be added to the output of content information in one field of the plurality of fields”. Applicant argues with respect to Nishizawa, that Nishizawa fails to teach that the program guide displays any of the status fields in the program games based on the user interacting with the program guide or the program frame and that the status fields are already displayed before receiving the user selection of the program frame or any other user interaction with the program guide.
The Applicant’s arguments have been noted. However, it should be noted that the claim limitation is rejected based on the combination of Davies, Nishizawa, and Vleck. In particular, Nishizawa is relied upon for causing output, at a second time, an output of the first image and output of the second image to be added to the output of content information in the one field of the plurality of fields, wherein the one or more first graphical properties of the first image changes according to one or more updates of the at least one viewing statistic and the one or more second graphical properties of the second image changes according one or more updates of the media information (See Fig.13 and Fig.25 and [0135]-[0140] and [0198]-[0209] which discloses of changing properties of at least color or updated icon for ranking and highlighting of a border for metrics meeting thresholds after updating the statistics). Specifically, [0135] and [0199] teaches of the program guide updating the popularity rank indicators once a minute, wherein the updating is construed to be that of the second time and wherein the added images of the first and second image includes the images of at least a crown and ranking/status indicator images of color or highlighted image of the border of the status/metric fields being added upon updates where the metrics meet a specific threshold.
Vleck is relied upon for where the causing at a second time is based on an interaction with the interface (See Fig.6 and [0044] which discloses of the refresh button for refreshing the data on the EPG). As noted above, Nishizawa discloses of the updating of the statistics and metrics once a minute but is silent with respect to a manual refreshing/updating based on user interaction with the interface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Davies and Nishizawa to have incorporated the teachings of Vleck for the mere benefit of allowing the user/viewer to be able to update the data upon demand in order to have more recent data.
For the reasons stated above, the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows: (See MPEP Ch. 2141)
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art;
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims in issue;
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
Evaluating evidence of secondary considerations for indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4. Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Davies, US 2013/0117773 in view of Nishizawa et al., US 2014/0193136, and in further view of Vleck et al., US 2009/0025025.
Regarding claim 1, Davies teaches of a method comprising:
causing output of an interface comprising a plurality of fields (See Fig.3, EPG with plurality of fields such as trending channels, other channels etc.), wherein each field of the plurality of fields is configured to output, at a first time, content information of a content item of a plurality of content items (See Fig.3 and [0029]-[0048] which discloses of each of the fields such as trending channels and other channels outputting content information such as times viewership data, title, etc. of multiple different content items/titles/programs; moreover, the initial display/output of content information before any refreshing is performed or at the initial launching of the EPG is construed to be that of the first time);
generating a first image comprising one or more first graphical properties associated with at least one viewing statistic associated with the content item (See Fig.3 and [0029]-[0048] which discloses of first image of at least a bar graph representing viewing statistics and/or message data, the properties including dimensions color/shade and/or bordering) ;
generating a second image comprising one or more second graphical properties associated with social media information associated with the content item (See Fig.3 and [0029]-[0048] which discloses social media information of at least depicting social media such as how many people in your tv circle are watching, the properties including dimensions color/shade and/or bordering).
Davies is silent with respect to causing output, at a second time, an output of the first image and output of the second image to be added to the output of content information in the one field of the plurality of fields, wherein the one or more first graphical properties of the first image changes according to one or more updates of the at least one viewing statistic and the one or more second graphical properties of the second image changes according one or more updates of the social media information.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nishizawa teaches causing output, at a second time, an output of the first image and output of the second image to be added to the output of content information in the one field of the plurality of fields, wherein the one or more first graphical properties of the first image changes according to one or more updates of the at least one viewing statistic and the one or more second graphical properties of the second image changes according one or more updates of the media information (See Fig.13 and Fig.25 and [0135]-[0140] and [0198]-[0209] which discloses of changing properties of at least color or updated icon for ranking and highlighting of a border for metrics meeting thresholds after updating the statistics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Davies and the teachings of displaying statistics such as metrics of friends and messages to have incorporated the teachings of Nishizawa and the teachings changing colors/shades, adding icons for rankings and adding highlights to borders of the metrics for enhancing the viewers ability to find content that is more appealing.
The combination of Davies and Nishizawa is silent with respect to where the causing at a second time is based on an interaction with the interface.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vleck teaches of where the causing at a second time is based on an interaction with the interface (See Fig.6 and [0044] which discloses of the refresh button for refreshing the data on the EPG).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Davies and Nishizawa to have incorporated the teachings of Vleck for the mere benefit of allowing the user/viewer to be able to update the data upon demand in order to have more recent data.
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, and of a social media information comprising of a social media feed (See Davies, Fig.2; [0034]-[0035], and [0039]) and wherein the social media feed being present within of the fields of the epg/plurality of fields.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of fields are arranged in a grid and the social media feed is positioned above another field on the interface (See Davies, Fig.3 multiple grids separating the channels and [0035];[0039] which discloses the feeds can be situated anywhere; Stinson, Fig.5, 510 which discloses of the feed being positioned over other fields/programs on the interface).
Regarding claim 6, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 11, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 20, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
5. Claims 2, 7, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Davies, US 2013/0117773, in view of Nishizawa et al., US 2014/0193136, in view Vleck et al., US 2009/0025025, and in view of Gossweiler, US 2015/0195624.
Regarding claim 2, Davies in view of Nishizawa in view of Vleck teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first image or second image comprises at least one of an image or an icon, wherein the first image represents a trend associated with the at least one viewing statistic and wherein the one or more first graphical properties are associated with color information (See Davies, Fig.3, 312, 314 which discloses of the statistic representation containing at least an image/icon of a bar graph; Fig.2 and [0040]-[0043]; Nishizawa, See Fig.13 and Fig.25 and [0135]-[0140] and [0198]-[0209]).
Davies in view of Nishizawa in view of Vleck is silent with respect to wherein the first image displays color information having an intensity indicative of the trend.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gossweiler teaches of wherein the first image displays color information having an intensity indicative of the trend (See [0003], [0020], [0037]-[0043]; Figs.1A-1B which discloses that the popularity may be illustrated and correlated to varying colors or shades of colors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the teachings of Davies, Nishizawa, and Vleck to have incorporated the teachings of Gossweiler for the mere benefit of being able to provide different viewing metrics and trends for content such that the viewer may be able to quickly gauge interest in a content item.
Regarding claim 7, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
6. Claims 3, 8, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Davies, US 2013/0117773, in view of Nishizawa et al., US 2014/0193136, in view of Vleck et al., US 2009/0025025, and in view of Hofer et al., US 2013/0117786.
Regarding claim 3, Davies in view of Nishizawa in view of Vleck teaches the method of claim 1, wherein causing the output of the first image and the output of the second image to be added to the output of content information in the one field is based on a selected of a first filter associated with the first image (See Davies, Fig.3 and [0019]-[0026] which discloses of at least the filtering of programming content displayed in the epg of which the content information and first/second images relate to when displaying the social circle/newsfeed/ and statistics. It should further be noted that the claim does not recite what the filter is and how it is associated with the first image. Hence, since the news feed/social content is applied to the program based on the program being filtered to be displayed whereby the filter of displaying the program is associated with the first image since the statistics are also associated with the applied/filtered program; Nishizawa, See Fig.13 and Fig.25 and [0135]-[0140] and [0198]-[0209], thresholds construed to be as filters for output of the images).
Davies in view of Nishizawa in view of Vleck is silent with respect to the selection of a second filter associated with the second image.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hofer teaches of the selection of a second filter associated with the second image (See [0024]-0027] and [0029]-0032] which discloses of a filter of at least selecting a normal guide or social network content. It is further disclosed of at least another filter of the “whats on now”, “everything” or “my social” filter as to what to display on the social network content guide. It is further disclosed of even another filter of deciding and filtering which social media circles to include. It should further be noted that the claim does not recite what the second filter is and how it is associated with the second image. Hence, either of these filters would read on the claim limitation since each of the filters is applied to process of having the outputted program displayed on the EPG for the representations to even be displayed, thereby being associated with the second image since the statistics are applied to the displayed program based on the displaying/filtering to get to the outputted displayed programs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the teachings of Davies, Nishizawa, and Vleck to have incorporated the teachings of Hofer for the mere benefit of outputting programs and information to the user in better identifying and guiding the user to content that is more likely to be of interest.
Regarding claim 8, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ricky Chin whose telephone number is 571-270-3753. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Ricky Chin/
Primary Examiner
AU 2424
(571) 270-3753
Ricky.Chin@uspto.gov