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 .
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 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 9-20 remain pending, and are rejected.
Claims 21-24 have been added, and are rejected.
Claims 2, 4-5, and 8 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/24/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/24/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 8-9 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, such as by reciting “sending, based on the user selection, a command, wherein the command causes the requesting device to record the selected content item”, as it provides language indicating the claim as a whole, and is not directed to an idea of advertising/marketing activity. The Applicant further argues that the limitation applies the judicial exception in a meaningful way as a user will view and select from the recommendation list and a command is sent to cause the requesting device to record that selection. On pages 9-10, the Applicant also argues that the ordered combination of steps transform the alleged abstract idea into a patent eligible invention, citing Bascom as comparison.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The body of the claims is directed to identifying rates of acceptances of recommendations to output a list of recommended content items to a user, which is a marketing and sales activity. The recording of a selected content item is merely applied to the abstract idea with a high level of generality. Furthermore, the actual recording of content is not actively recited, as the claim recites sending a command to cause recording of the selected content item. Sending a command is not a technical activity, and can be as simple as a verbal command for someone to record the content. Even if the recording was actively recited, it would only be generally applied to the abstract idea, and the specification does not disclose any particular method or technology of the recording. The recording is disclosed in specification paragraphs [0044] and [0062], which merely discloses the command to a DVR to record a program, without any further detail. As such, it is clear that generic television equipment is merely applied to the abstract idea. The comparisons to Bascom are also inapposite. In Bascom, the combination of elements did not merely apply generic components to an abstract idea, but applied the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond providing a general link to a particular technological environment by taking advantage of the ability of the ISPs to identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server to associate a request for internet content with a specific individual account. There is not such as leveraging of technical abilities to provide an inventive concept or technical improvement, but the present claims only tack on a recording of content in a generic manner as extra-solution activity.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/24/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 9-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 9-24 are directed to a method, which is a process. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 9-24 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 sets forth the following limitations (emphasized in bold) reciting the abstract idea of sorting a recommendation list by a rate of change in acceptances:
receiving, by a computing device and for a plurality of different times, information indicating quantities of acceptances of social media recommendations for a plurality of content items;
causing a display to output a user interface comprising a list of the content items,
wherein the content items in the list are ordered based on respective rates of change in the quantities of acceptances of social media recommendations for respective ones of the content items;
the list comprises, for each content item in the list, a corresponding display image based on a rate of change in a quantity of acceptances of social media recommendations for the content item;
receiving, from a requesting device associated with the display, a user selection of a content item from the list;
sending, based on the user selection, a command to cause recording of the selected content item.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for sorting a recommendation list by a rate of change in acceptances. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to information for recommendation acceptances and sending a list of recommendations ordered based on the rate of change in acceptances, which is an advertising and marketing activity.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 recites additional elements, such as:
receiving, by a computing device and for a plurality of different times, information indicating quantities of acceptances of social media recommendations for a plurality of content items;
causing a display to output a user interface comprising a list of the content items,
wherein the content items in the list are ordered based on respective rates of change in the quantities of acceptances of social media recommendations for respective ones of the content items;
the list comprises, for each content item in the list, a corresponding display image based on a rate of change in a quantity of acceptances of social media recommendations for the content item;
receiving, from a requesting device associated with the display, a user selection of a content item from the list;
sending, based on the user selection, a command to cause recording of the selected content item.
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite a computing device and a requesting device, these elements are recited with a very high level of generality. Paragraph [0022] on pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s specification and Figure 2 disclose the computing device, merely disclosing that the device may include one or more processors, memory, and input devices. Each of these components are also recited with no specificity, the specification lists multiple possible devices for the components. It is evident that the computing device is any generic computing device. The requesting device is also disclosed in specification paragraph [0021] on page 4 as being any personal computer, mobile phone, netbook, home gateway device, etc. It is clear that the computing device and requesting device are generic components that merely represent various entities in the abstract idea, and only serve to provide a general link to a particular technological environment. The recording is also recited very generally, specification paragraph [0044] disclosing that the recording is done on a DVR, without any further detail. As such, it is evident that the recording is any generic recording technology using generic television equipment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), representative claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 10 (method): Claim 10 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 10 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17 (non-transitory computer readable medium): Claim 17 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 17 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Dependent claims 3, 6-7, 9, 11-16, and 18-24 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the algorithm of sorting a recommendation list by a rate of change in acceptances, and do not recite any further additional elements. Thus, each of claims3, 6-7, 9, 11-16, and 18-24 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims3, 6-7, 9, 11-16, and 18-24 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 3, 6-7, 9, 11-16, and 18-24 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 1. Further additional elements are also acknowledged (e.g., (a second requesting device (claim 2); a streaming service (claim 3); a server associated with the streaming service (claim 3); a quantity of requesting devices (claim 5); a third requesting device (claim 7); a content recording device (claim 8); a push notification (claims 21 and 23)); however, the additional elements of claims 3, 6-7, 9, 11-16, and 18-24 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 3, 6-7, 9, 11-16, and 18-24 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 3, 6-7, 9, 11-16, and 18-24 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1. Thus, dependent claims 3, 6-7, 9, 11-16, and 18-24 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 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, 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 negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 10-12, 16-17, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Olejniczak (US 20100293034 A1) in view of Jacoby (US 20060271953 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Olejniczak discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and for a plurality of different times, information indicating quantities of acceptances of recommendations for a plurality of content items; (Olejniczak: [0027] – “The computerized ranking system 200 includes a revenue data source 210, a search data source 220, a page view data source 230, a clicks data source 240, a product details data source 250, a category data source 260, an analysis data store 270”; Oljeniczak: Fig. 2, #210,240). Click data and sales data would represent acceptances of the items over time, and as they are various sources, the information is received or retrieved from these sources.
causing a display to output a user interface comprising a list of the content items wherein: causing a display to output a user interface comprising a list of the content items, wherein the content items in the list are ordered based on respective rates of change in the quantities of acceptances of recommendations for respective ones of the content items; (Olejniczak: [0039] – “transmits an ordered list of popular products for display to a user. The ranking system 200 periodically generates scores for the products that are comparable across time periods. In turn, a user that receives the list may request additional data for each product included in the list.”; Olejniczak: [0040] – “the multivariable score is generated by a ranking system to determine a popularity of a product during a specified period of time”; Olejniczak: [0025] – “generates the rank and provides a user with a graphical summary of the popularity of a group of products over a period of time”).
the list comprises, for each content item in the list, a corresponding display image based on a rate of change in a quantity of acceptances of recommendations for the content items; (Olejniczak: [0049] – “The comparison graph 610 may illustrate the change in scores for products within a video game category selected by a user. For instance, the video game category may include the top four games. The comparison graph 610 illustrates the games that are gaining popularity and the games that are losing popularity in a graphical manner. The comparison graph also illustrates that rate at which popularity changes over a specified period of time”; Olejniczak: Fig. 6 – graph of changing popularity of various products).
receiving, from a requesting device associated with the display, a user selection of a content item from the list; (Olejniczak: [0025] – “the client devices 130 may receive the list of popular products and a user may interact with the list of popular products to initiate a purchase transaction for a product on the list”).
Olejniczak does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
social media;
sending, based on the user selection, a command to cause recording of the selected content item.
Notably, however, Olejniczak does disclose the user interacting with the list to initiate a purchase transaction for the product (Olejniczak: [0025]), and the recommended products including movies (Olejniczak: [0024]).
To that accord, Jacoby does teach a method comprising:
social media; (Jacoby: [0058] – “the recommendation component 124 may also utilize the user profiles of a given user's buddies, e.g., the profiles of those users that are in the given user's social network”).
sending, based on the user selection, a command to cause recording of the selected content item. (Jacoby: [0054] – “Where the client device 126a, 128a, 130a and 132a comprises digital video recording functionality ("DVR"), the TV application component 118 may provide the user in the social network with an opportunity to schedule recording of the program”; Jacoby: [0094] – “As content is displayed on a given user's client device, a check is periodically performed to determine whether the user has elected to tag the content being displayed, step 620. If a user does not enter any tagging information, content continues to be displayed on the client device, step 615, and the user may continue to select content from among the plurality of content available to the user. If a user enters a tag, the tag marked by the user is saved, step 625. According to one embodiment of the invention, the content tagged by the user is saved locally on the user's client device or remotely on another device operative to record content. For example, a client device with digital video recording functionality ("DVR") may provide the user with the ability to locally record a given item of tagged content”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Olejniczak disclosing the system for providing a recommendation list sorted by trends of popularity with the social media recommendation and sending a command to cause recording of the selected content item as taught by Jacoby. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to retrieve and advertise relevant content to the user context (Jacoby: [0129]).
Regarding Claim 10: Olejniczak discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and for a plurality of different times, information indicating quantities of acceptances of recommendations for a plurality of content items; (Olejniczak: [0027] – “The computerized ranking system 200 includes a revenue data source 210, a search data source 220, a page view data source 230, a clicks data source 240, a product details data source 250, a category data source 260, an analysis data store 270”; Oljeniczak: Fig. 2, #210,240). Click data and sales data would represent acceptances of the items over time, and as they are various sources, the information is received or retrieved from these sources.
cause a display to output a user interface comprising a list of the content items, a list of the content items, wherein the position of the content items in the list is based on comparing: (Olejniczak: [0039] – “transmits an ordered list of popular products for display to a user. The ranking system 200 periodically generates scores for the products that are comparable across time periods”).
a first plurality of acceptances, for the content item, that occurred in a first time period of the plurality of different time periods; (Olejniczak: [0039] – “transmits an ordered list of popular products for display to a user. The ranking system 200 periodically generates scores for the products that are comparable across time periods”). The comparing of scores are across time periods, would require the revenue and sales (acceptances) of a first and second time period
a second plurality of acceptances, for the content item, that occurred in a second time period of the plurality of different time periods; (Olejniczak: [0039] – “transmits an ordered list of popular products for display to a user. The ranking system 200 periodically generates scores for the products that are comparable across time periods”). The comparing of scores are across time periods, would require the revenue and sales (acceptances) of a first and second time period
wherein the list of content items graphically highlights one or more content items based on rates of change in quantities of acceptances of social media recommendations for the one or more content items; (Olejniczak: [0049] – “The comparison graph 610 may illustrate the change in scores for products within a video game category selected by a user. For instance, the video game category may include the top four games. The comparison graph 610 illustrates the games that are gaining popularity and the games that are losing popularity in a graphical manner. The comparison graph also illustrates that rate at which popularity changes over a specified period of time”; Olejniczak: [0025] – “generates a popularity rank for each product in the product database. The ranking system 120 periodically generates the rank and provides a user with a graphical summary of the popularity of a group of products over a period of time”; Olejniczak: Fig. 5 & Fig. 6 – the thickness of the lines are changed by the item rankings to highlight the ranked item in order of the group of items).
receiving, from a requesting device, a user selection of a content item from the list; Olejniczak: [0025] – “the client devices 130 may receive the list of popular products and a user may interact with the list of popular products to initiate a purchase transaction for a product on the list”).
Olejniczak does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
social media;
sending, based on the user selection, a command to cause recording of the selected content item.
Notably, however, Olejniczak does disclose the user interacting with the list to initiate a purchase transaction for the product (Olejniczak: [0025]), and the recommended products including movies (Olejniczak: [0024]).
To that accord, Jacoby does teach a method comprising:
social media; (Jacoby: [0058] – “the recommendation component 124 may also utilize the user profiles of a given user's buddies, e.g., the profiles of those users that are in the given user's social network”).
sending, based on the user selection, a command to cause recording of the selected content item. (Jacoby: [0054] – “Where the client device 126a, 128a, 130a and 132a comprises digital video recording functionality ("DVR"), the TV application component 118 may provide the user in the social network with an opportunity to schedule recording of the program”; Jacoby: [0094] – “As content is displayed on a given user's client device, a check is periodically performed to determine whether the user has elected to tag the content being displayed, step 620. If a user does not enter any tagging information, content continues to be displayed on the client device, step 615, and the user may continue to select content from among the plurality of content available to the user. If a user enters a tag, the tag marked by the user is saved, step 625. According to one embodiment of the invention, the content tagged by the user is saved locally on the user's client device or remotely on another device operative to record content. For example, a client device with digital video recording functionality ("DVR") may provide the user with the ability to locally record a given item of tagged content”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Olejniczak disclosing the system for providing a recommendation list sorted by trends of popularity with the social media recommendation and sending a command to cause recording of the selected content item as taught by Jacoby. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to retrieve and advertise relevant content to the user context (Jacoby: [0129]).
Regarding Claim 11: Olejniczak in view of Jacoby discloses the limitations of claim 10 above.
Olejniczak further discloses wherein the position of the content items in the list is based on a ratio of a first plurality of acceptances for the content item and a second plurality of acceptances for the content item. Olejniczak: [0037] – “calculate a score that represents a multivariable rank that is used by the UX component 280 to generate a list of popular products. In some embodiments, the product rank analysis and score generation component 280 periodically executes a ranking algorithm to generate a score for each product for each hour in a 24-hour period and for a specified number of hours within the 24-hour period. The product rank analysis and score generation component 280 accesses the analysis data store 270 to retrieve counts for each variable, including, but not limited to, page views, clicks, and sales or revenue data for a specific product and a specific time period. In turn, the product rank analysis and score generation component 280 provides an overall score for each product. That score represents the product's popularity for the given time period”).
Regarding Claim 12: Olejniczak in view of Jacoby discloses the limitations of claim 10 above.
Olejniczak further discloses wherein the causing display to output the user interface comprising the list of the content items comprises causing displaying, for each of the content items in the list, a ratio a first plurality of acceptances for the content item and a second plurality of acceptances for the content item. (Olejniczak: [0049] – “The comparison graph 610 may illustrate the change in scores for products within a video game category selected by a user. For instance, the video game category may include the top four games. The comparison graph 610 illustrates the games that are gaining popularity and the games that are losing popularity in a graphical manner. The comparison graph also illustrates that rate at which popularity changes over a specified period of time”; Olejniczak: [0037] – “generate a score for each product for each hour in a 24-hour period and for a specified number of hours within the 24-hour period. The product rank analysis and score generation component 280 accesses the analysis data store 270 to retrieve counts for each variable, including, but not limited to, page views, clicks, and sales or revenue data for a specific product and a specific time period. In turn, the product rank analysis and score generation component 280 provides an overall score for each product. That score represents the product's popularity for the given time period”; Olejniczak: Fig. 6 – the graph displays the popularity of the items over periods of time, showing a ratio of one time period to another).
Regarding Claim 16: Olejniczak in view of Jacoby discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Olejniczak does not explicitly teach wherein sending the command to cause recording of the selected content item comprises causing sending of the selected content item to at least one of: the requesting device or a content recording device. Notably, however, Olejniczak does disclose the user interacting with the list to initiate a purchase transaction for the product (Olejniczak: [0025]), and the recommended products including movies (Olejniczak: [0024]).
To that accord, Jacoby does teach wherein sending the command to cause recording of the selected content item comprises causing sending of the selected content item to at least one of: the requesting device or a content recording device. Examiner notes that Applicant recites or in the claim. (Jacoby: [0054] – “Where the client device 126a, 128a, 130a and 132a comprises digital video recording functionality ("DVR"), the TV application component 118 may provide the user in the social network with an opportunity to schedule recording of the program”). The DVR represents a content recording device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Olejniczak disclosing the system for providing a recommendation list sorted by trends of popularity with the command to cause recording to add the content item to a recording schedule of a recording device as taught by Jacoby. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to in case the program cannot be located in the electronic program guide (Jacoby: [0054]).
Regarding Claim 17: Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 20: Olejniczak in view of Jacoby discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Olejniczak further discloses wherein the receiving the list of the content items further comprise receiving, for each of the content items in the list, an indication of a respective rate of change in a quantity of acceptances of social media recommendations for the content item. (Olejniczak: [0049] – “illustrate the change in scores for products within a video game category selected by a user. For instance, the video game category may include the top four games. The comparison graph 610 illustrates the games that are gaining popularity and the games that are losing popularity in a graphical manner. The comparison graph also illustrates that rate at which popularity changes over a specified period of time”).
Regarding Claim 24: Olejniczak in view of Jacoby discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Olejniczak does not explicitly teach wherein the command to cause recording of the selected content item comprises a command to add the content item to a recording schedule of a content recording device. Notably, however, Olejniczak does disclose the user interacting with the list to initiate a purchase transaction for the product (Olejniczak: [0025]), and the recommended products including movies (Olejniczak: [0024]).
To that accord, Jacoby does teach wherein the command to cause recording of the selected content item comprises a command to add the content item to a recording schedule of a content recording device. (Jacoby: [0054] - “Where the client device 126a, 128a, 130a and 132a comprises digital video recording functionality ("DVR"), the TV application component 118 may provide the user in the social network with an opportunity to schedule recording of the program”). The DVR represents a content recording device.
Jacoby teaches the recording of the program being scheduled for the DVR (Jacoby: [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Olejniczak disclosing the system for providing a recommendation list sorted by trends of popularity with the command to cause recording to add the content item to a recording schedule of a recording device as taught by Jacoby. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to in case the program cannot be located in the electronic program guide (Jacoby: [0054]).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Olejniczak (US 20100293034 A1) and Jacoby (US 20060271953 A1), in view of Wiser (US 20100031162 A1).
Regarding Claim 3: The combination of Olejniczak and Jacoby discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Olejniczak further discloses receiving, from a second requesting device associated with a second user, a second user selection of a second content item from the list; (Olejniczak: [0025] – “the client devices 130 may receive the list of popular products and a user may interact with the list of popular products to initiate a purchase transaction for a product on the list”; Olejniczak: [0016] – “The client devices may request to view popular products for all products or within a specific category of products. The ranking system receives the user request and generates a list of products having a multivariable rank. The ranking system provides the list of product based on the multivariable rank to the client devices”). Multiple devices viewing the list would mean multiple devices capable of selecting products, i.e. a second user selection of a second content item.
The combination does not explicitly teach based on determining a streaming service linked to a user profile of the second user, casing sending, to a server associated with the streaming service, of an indication to add the second content item to a playlist associated with the second user. Notably, however, Jacoby does teach the user selecting an opportunity to schedule the recording to the DVR of the identified item (Jacoby: [0054]).
To that accord, Wiser does teach based on determining a streaming service linked to a user profile of the second user, casing sending, to a server associated with the streaming service, of an indication to add the second content item to a playlist associated with the second user. (Wiser: [0283] – “query a subscriber database in the content delivery system to determine which members of that viewer's social network are also subscribers/viewers to the content delivery system… The viewer may then pick a friend to recommend the content to. The recommendation will then be sent to the receiver controller(s) associated with that friend. On the receiving end of that friend, a category labeled "Recommendations From Friends" under an interface such as "My Shows" may appear, listing the recommended content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Olejniczak and Jacoby disclosing the system for providing a recommendation list sorted by trends of popularity with the determining a streaming service linked to a user profile to add the content item to a playlist as taught by Wiser. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the option to view the content, download the content for later or current viewing, or record the content (Wiser: [0283]).
Regarding Claim 13: Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Olejniczak (US 20100293034 A1) and Jacoby (US 20060271953 A1), in view of Selinger (US 20100250336 A1).
Regarding Claim 6: The combination of Olejniczak and Jacoby discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
sending the social media recommendations for the plurality of content items, wherein the sending the social media recommendation is based on receiving user inputs indicating that the plurality of content items is currently being watched via a plurality of requesting devices. Notably, however, Jacoby does teach identifying users in a user’s social network to determine what content to recommend to the user (Jacoby: [0058]).
To that accord, Selinger does teach sending the recommendations for the plurality of content items, wherein the sending the recommendation is based on receiving user inputs indicating that the plurality of content items is currently being watched via a plurality of requesting devices. (Selinger: [0042] – “multiple users (e.g., of a group) may interact with a display 200 or other GUI, whether simultaneously or consecutively, and whether on one or more client devices, such as to display recommended items that are based on multiple currently selected items that have been indicated by multiple users”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Olejniczak and Jacoby disclosing the system for providing a recommendation list sorted by trends of popularity with the recommendations being based on user inputs that the items are currently being watched as taught by Selinger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize different recommendation strategies using prior interactions of numerous users (Selinger: [0010]).
Regarding Claim 14: Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Claim 7, 9, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Olejniczak (US 20100293034 A1) and Jacoby (US 20060271953 A1), in view of Barish (US 20090300670 A1).
Regarding Claim 7: The combination of Olejniczak and Jacoby discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
receiving user input indicating that a second content item is currently being watched via a second requesting device associated with a second user;
based on the user input, sending a social media recommendation, for the second content item, to a third requesting device that is associated with a third user who is in a friends list of the second user.
Notably, however, Jacoby does teach identifying users in a user’s social network to determine what content to recommend to the user (Jacoby: [0058]).
To that accord, Barish does teach a method comprising:
receiving user input indicating that a second content item is currently being watched via a second requesting device associated with a second user; (Barish: [0036] – “The social networking module 112 may allow a user to recommend advertisement and/or entertainment media components to one or more other users forming part of a viewer's social network”).
based on the user input, sending a social media recommendation, for the second content item, to a third requesting device that is associated with a third user who is in a friends list of the second user. (Barish: [0036] – “The social networking module 112 may allow a user to recommend advertisement and/or entertainment media components to one or more other users forming part of a viewer's social network”; Barish: [0062-0063] – “If the user decides to share the media content with one or more other users who are not currently in the user's friends list, an email addresses may be provided in an email address field 276. A "NOTES" field 278 is provided by the GUI 270 to allow the user to write a note to the one or more persons he wishes to share the media content with”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Olejniczak and Jacoby disclosing the system for providing a recommendation list sorted by trends of popularity with the indicating of a content item currently being watched being recommended to a friend as taught by Barish. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide financial benefit to users for distributing media (BArish: [0024]).
Regarding Claim 9: The combination of Olejniczak and Jacoby discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
sending, to a second requesting device, a social media recommendation for a second content item, wherein the sending the social media recommendation is based on receiving an indication that the second content item is being watched via a third requesting device associated with a second user;
receiving, from the second requesting device, an indication of acceptance of the social media recommendation for the second content item;
based on receiving the indication of acceptance of the social media recommendation for the second content item, granting a recommendation credit for the second user.
Notably, however, Olejniczak does disclose multiple devices requesting to view the list of popular products (Olejniczak: [0016]).
To that accord Barish does teach a method comprising:
sending, to a second requesting device, a social media recommendation for a second content item, wherein the sending the social media recommendation is based on receiving an indication that the second content item is being watched via a third requesting device associated with a second user; (Barish: [0036] – “The social networking module 112 may allow a user to recommend advertisement and/or entertainment media components to one or more other users forming part of a viewer's social network”).
receiving, from the second requesting device, an indication of acceptance of the social media recommendation for the second content item; (Barish: [0044] – “monitor a request from the first user to share at least one advertisement media component or art least one entertainment media component with a second user… when the shared media content is viewed by the second user”).
based on receiving the indication of acceptance of the social media recommendation for the second content item, granting a recommendation credit for the second user. (Barish: [0044] – “An award associated with the shared media content may selectively (e.g., based on an award algorithm) be allocated or awarded when the shared media content is viewed by the second user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Olejniczak and Jacoby disclosing the system for providing a recommendation list sorted by trends of popularity with the sending of a recommendation based on the content item being currently watched and granting a recommendation credit for an indication of an acceptance as taught by Barish. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide financial benefit to users for distributing media (BArish: [0024]).
Regarding Claim 15 and 19: Claims 15 and 19 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, claims 15 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Olejniczak (US 20100293034 A1) and Jacoby (US 20060271953 A1), in view of Kassaei (US 20110173095 A1).
Regarding Claim 18: The combination of Olejniczak in view of Jacoby discloses the limitations of claim 17 above.
Olejniczak does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
receiving, via the user interface, a user selection of a second content item;
sending, to the network device, a social media recommendation for the second content item.
Oljeniczak discloses a user interacting with the list to initiate a transaction for a product on the list (Olejniczak: [0025]), and multiple devices requesting to view the list of popular products (Olejniczak: [0016]).
To that accord, Kassaei does teach a method comprising:
receiving, via the user interface, a user selection of a second content item; (Kassaei: [0054] – “recommendations for respective products within a single category are received 602 from a first user”). The plurality of products indicate that at least a second item is selected.
sending, to the network device, a social media recommendation for the second content item. (Kassaei: [0054] – “ The recommendations are communicated 604 to a plurality of users where the recommendations”; Kassaei: [0018] – “A social shopping server allows the user to communicate one or more recommendations to one or more friends by communicating with the online marketplaces visited by the user and with the social networks to which the user belongs”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Olejniczak and Jacoby disclosing the system for providing a recommendation list sorted by trends of popularity with the selection of a second content item and sending a social media recommendation for the second content item as taught by Kassaei. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to identify items of interest for friends (Kassaei: [0004]).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Olejniczak (US 20100293034 A1) and Jacoby (US 20060271953 A1), in view of Athsani (US 20090148124 A1).
Regarding Claim 21: The combination of Olejniczak and Jacoby discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach sending, based on the command to cause the requesting device to record the selected content item, a push notification to the requesting device indicating the command to record the selected content item. Notably, however, Jacoby does teach the user selecting an opportunity to schedule the recording to the DVR of the identified item (Jacoby: [0054]).
To that accord, Athsani does teach sending, based on the command to cause the requesting device to record the selected content item, a push notification to the requesting device indicating the command to record the selected content item. (Athsani: [0170] – “the CU's receiving device may be provided with an "Alert" mechanism to notify the CU when a recording is available”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Olejniczak and Jacoby disclosing the system for providing a recommendation list sorted by trends of popularity with the push notification being sent to the requesting device based on the command to cause recording as taught by Athsani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to notify the user when the recording is available (Athsani: [0170]).
Regarding Claim 23: The combination of Olejniczak and Jacoby discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach sending, based on the command to cause the requesting device to record the selected content item, a push notification to the wireless mobile device indicating the command to record the selected content item. Notably, however, Jacoby does teach the user selecting an opportunity to schedule the recording to the DVR of the identified item (Jacoby: [0054]).
To that accord, Athsani does teach sending, based on the command to cause the requesting device to record the selected content item, a push notification to the wireless mobile device indicating the command to record the selected content item. (Athsani: [0170] – “the CU's receiving device may be provided with an "Alert" mechanism to notify the CU when a recording is available”; Athsani: [0074] – “a mobile multimedia receiving and feedback device is used in requesting, receiving and providing feedback to the multimedia content. As in the other embodiment, the mobile receiving device includes a point-of-interest window 330 to display the multimedia stream captured by a specific GU that is currently selected for viewing by the CU, with additional controls in the form of a navigation control 385 to navigate through various options available at the mobile phone device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Olejniczak and Jacoby disclosing the system for providing a recommendation list sorted by trends of popularity with the push notification being sent to the requesting device based on the command to cause recording as taught by Athsani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to notify the user when the recording is available (Athsani: [0170]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Olejniczak (US 20100293034 A1) and Jacoby (US 20060271953 A1), in view of Bates (US 20090300547 A1).
Regarding Claim 22: The combination of Olejniczak and Jacoby discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the causing the display to output the user interface further comprises causing display of a user-selectable option to filter the list based on a user-specified group into one or more lists. Notably, however, Olejniczak does disclose transmitting an ordered list of popular products for display to a user (Olejniczak: [0039-0040]).
To that accord, Bates does teach wherein the causing the display to output the user interface further comprises causing display of a user-selectable option to filter the list based on a user-specified group into one or more lists. (Bates: [0047] – “user interface 200 offers a set of controls 220 to the user to filter the recommendations comprising: [0048] (a) category filter 220a: the user can select one or multiple categories such as "Business", "Science/Technology", "Cinema", "Home/Garden", "Family", and "Society". If the user selects one or more categories, then only recommended articles from the selected categories are displayed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Olejniczak and Jacoby disclosing the system for providing a recommendation list sorted by trends of popularity with the interface with user-selectable options to filter the list as taught by Bates. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to separate relevant items from the irrelevant items on a recommender interface (Bates: [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Estrada (US 20090326970 A1) discloses a system in a social networking system for recommendations of content from members to members, and tracking popularity of the content over time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 1/18/2026