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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner notes the amendments eliminate the need for the Raleigh prior art reference and read on the Pollet prior art reference. In regards to the Pollet reference, Applicant argues that Pollet fails to teach a content output duration. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that in addition to Smith already teaching a content output duration threshold in the form of a dwell time threshold, Pollet additionally teaches that the reliability threshold is explicitly used to determine if new connections from the mobile computing devices are avoided if or until the threshold is met or exceeded (see Paragraph 0045). The Examiner further notes that if no connections are made, no content can be output for a duration determined by if the reliability threshold is met or exceeded (under, equal to or over the threshold value). Further, Pollet teaches that statistics about lost packets, dropped connections (relating to a content item being output) is used to develop metrics about the reliability of a processing device and then further teaches that these metrics are used to determine which devices are the most reliable (see Paragraph 0045). Therefore, Pollet teaches the amendments to claims (see the updated rejection below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-9, 21-29, 31-39 and 41-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0260278) in view of Smith et al. (see Patent Application Publication 2008/0250453) in further view of Pollet (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0014742).
Referring to claim 1, Lambert discloses determining, based on content viewership data associated with a user device, a start time of a delivery of a content item and an end time of the delivery of the content item (see Paragraph 0026 for storing times and durations at which a viewing device was used to present the programming of the channels).
Lambert also discloses determining, based on the start time and the end time, a content viewing session (see Paragraph 0028 for determining channel time blocks or time blocks based on the channel tune data).
Lambert also discloses determining, based on comparing a viewing characteristic of the content viewing session to a content output duration threshold, a false positive viewing event (see Paragraph 0027 for removing false positive events based on either a user likely falling asleep and leaving the set top box device on or tuning to channels to fast, known as “channel surfing”).
Lambert also discloses removing the false positive event from a viewership statistic (see Paragraph 0027 for removing the false positive event from the channel tune data).
While Lambert uses a channel surf threshold to determine false positive events (see Paragraph 0027), Lambert fails to teach determining, based on the content item, a content output duration threshold.
Smith discloses determining, based on the content item, a content output duration threshold (see Paragraphs 0135-0137 and 0139-0141 for determining, based on content items viewed, a content output duration threshold in the form of a dwell time threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the false positive determination system, as taught by Lambert, to includes the content item output threshold determination functionality, as taught by Smith, for the purpose of adjusting advertisement costs associated with advertisements based on the identified automatically generated channel tune times (see Paragraph 0008 of Smith).
Lambert and Smith fail to teach determining, based on historical data associated with previous content viewing sessions (see Paragraph 0010 for the system used for viewing/listening to content), a classification of the user device as reliable (see Paragraph 0045 and the Examiner’s rebuttal above).
Pollet discloses determining, based on the content item and the classification of the user device as reliable, a content output duration threshold (see Paragraph 0045 and the Examiner’s rebuttal above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify content threshold determination functionality, as taught by Lambert and Smith, to classify devices based on their reliability, as taught by Pollet, for the purpose of scaling up a system on demand to accommodate an increased client load with reduced latency (see Paragraph 0018 of Pollet).
Referring to claim 2, Lambert also discloses that receiving the content viewership data, wherein the content viewership data comprises data from a data management platform (see Paragraph 0026 for storing the channel tune data at a device log data store 106, which receives the channel tune data from a plurality of users using devices 130).
Referring to claim 3, Lambert also discloses that determining the content output duration threshold for an hour of a plurality of hours, wherein the content output duration threshold comprises a cap threshold that defines a maximum duration of a context viewing session (see Paragraph 0028 for determining a time block of 15 minutes intervals, therefore determining a cap threshold of 15 minutes viewing duration of which to record channel tune data and since each interval is 15 minutes, this represents determining a content output threshold of 4 intervals per hour of the plurality of (24) hours).
Referring to claim 4, Lambert also discloses determining a percentile cap of the content output duration threshold based on a time of day (see Paragraph 0027 for determining that a viewer has tuned to a channel for multiple hours into the morning, which represents a time of day and a percentile cap that identifiers that multiple hours of the early morning identifiers that a user has fallen asleep). The Examiner further notes the cited portions of Smith in the rejection of claim 1.
Referring to claim 5, Lambert also discloses determining a time variant cap of the content output duration threshold based on a time of day (see Paragraph 0027 for determining that a viewer has tuned to a channel for multiple hours into the morning, which represents a time of day and a percentile cap that identifiers that multiple hours of the early morning identifiers that a user has fallen asleep). The Examiner further notes the cited portions of Smith in the rejection of claim 1.
Referring to claim 6, Pollet also discloses that the classification of the user device associated with the content item comprises a reliable classification (see Paragraph 0045 and the Examiner’s rebuttal above).
Referring to claim 7, Lambert also discloses that the viewing characteristic comprises an hour within a twenty-four-hour period (see Paragraph 0027 for the viewing characteristics recorded by the client device being multiple hours and Paragraph 0028 for determining channel tune data during 15 minutes intervals, wherein four 15 minutes intervals comprises an hour).
Referring to claim 8, Lambert also discloses that determining the false positive viewing event comprises iteratively determining a maximum session length parameter of the content output duration threshold (see Paragraph 0028 for determining channel tune data during 15 minutes intervals, wherein 15 minutes is the maximum determined interval). The Examiner further notes the cited portions of Smith in the rejection of claim 1.
Referring to claim 9, Lambert also discloses that the content output duration threshold comprises a duration of the content viewing session indicative of a viewer being absent for at least a portion of the content viewing session (see Paragraph 0027 for determining that a viewer has tuned to a channel for multiple hours into the morning, which represents a time of day and a percentile cap that identifiers that multiple hours of the early morning identifiers that a user has fallen asleep). The Examiner further notes the cited portions of Smith in the rejection of claim 1.
Referring to claims 21-29, see the rejection of claims 1-9, respectively.
Referring to claims 31-39, see the rejection of claims 1-9, respectively.
Referring to claims 41-43, see the rejection of claim 6 and the Examiner further notes that the claim is written in alternative form, wherein only a determination whether classification of the user device associated with the content item is the reliable classification is required to meet rejecting the claims (the remaining limitation are placed after the or operator).
Referring to claims 44-46, Lambert discloses that the false positive viewing event is indicative of the content item being output and not viewed during the content viewing session (see Paragraph 0027 for removing false positive events based on either a user likely falling asleep and leaving the set top box device on or tuning to channels to fast, known as “channel surfing”).
Claims 10, 30 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0260278) in view of Smith et al. (see Patent Application Publication 2008/0250453) in further view of Pollet (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0014742) in further view of Schlack et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0129368).
Referring to claim 10, Lambert also discloses that the false positive viewing event comprises an indication of the absence of the viewer corresponding to the content viewing device (see Paragraph 0027), and wherein the content viewing device is associated with the delivery of the content item (see Paragraph 0026 for additionally identifying the viewer device identifiers, wherein the viewing devices tunes to the television programs the viewer wishes to view during a particular time interval). Lambert, Smith and Pollet fail to teach that the false viewing event comprises an indication of a content viewing device being powered on.
Schlack discloses that a false positive event (viewing history data) can comprise an indication of when the set top box/television receiver is powered on (see Paragraphs 0239-0240).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the false positive viewing event, as taught by Lambert, Smith and Pollet, to include an indication or when a viewer’s client device is powered on, as taught by Schlack, for the purpose of further defining when a viewing session starts from when the user sits down to watch a television program.
Referring to claims 30 and 40, see the rejection of claim 10.
Conclusion
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 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 JASON P SALCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7301. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am-10:00pm M-F (Flex Schedule).
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/Jason Salce/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Jason P Salce
Senior Examiner
Art Unit 2421
January 30, 2026