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, see pages 8-9, filed 01/23/2025, with respect to claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 101 rejections of claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Duque does not disclose "for at least some of the users, the user record does not include any data representing socio-economic or demographic status.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the user record does not include any data representing socio-economic or demographic status) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Duque et al teaches for at least some of the user records, the user record does not include data representing socio-economic or demographic status (i.e. users need not register demographic information, so this information may be unknown for a given registered user. Furthermore, socio-economic information is not included in registered information) (Para. 0025).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Duque also does not disclose basing affinity profiles on such records (at least some of which do not include socio- economic or demographic status) and/or categorizing each user into one or more of a plurality of user segments based on their affinity profile) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The present claim language is open to broader interpretation and “categorizing each user into one or more of a plurality of user segments based on their affinity profile” fails to reference back to limitations of affinity profiles on such records (at least some of which do not include socio- economic or demographic status).
Applicant argues the affinity profiles may include affinity category scores, whereas the content classifications resulting from process 103 of Shin do not include any scoring component. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., whereas the content classifications resulting from process 103 of Shin do not include any scoring component) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The present claim language is open to broader interpretations. Claims recite “wherein each affinity profile comprises at least one selected affinity category or affinity category score.” Wherein the affinity category score is not required by the limitations.
To advance prosecution, the examiner noted in office action that Shin et al teaches each affinity profile comprises at least one selected affinity category or affinity category score(i.e. audience profiles comprises VScore including Geography/Meta 209), and the affinity categories are selected from a stored set of affinity categories (Figure 1), each representing a user's affinity for a respective subject area (i.e. analyzing viewing patterns to categorize and organize videos into relevant segments related brands, products, activities, lifestyles resulting in VScore metrics) (Col.3 lines 11-48, col.4 lines 6-57, Col.5 line 17-Col.6 line 2). Wherein the reference teaches a given user may be characterized as "low" (passer-by), "medium" (regular) or "high" (enthusiast). Audience segmentation may be investigated on any meta data attribute (per account, per content type, etc.) by identifying behaviors for viewers in each identified "segment" (or "bucket"). The "usage intensity" segmentation is not meant to be limiting, as other techniques, such as content affinity segmentation, may be used as well (Col. Lines 43-61). Thus, the combination meets claimed limitations.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7-9, 11-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7, 4, 9, 10, (5,11), 12-17, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,807. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant application claims are broader in every aspect than the patented claims and are therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds to patent claims 1, 4 and 9.
Claims 7-9, 11-18 and 20 correspond to the patent claims 3, 7, 4, 9, 10, (5,11), 12-17 respectively.
Claims 1, 7-9, 11-13, 16-17, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim (1, 2-3, 7, 11, 14), 1-3, 7, 1, (10,11), 16-17, 20 of copending Application No. 18/130,850 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant application claims are broader in every aspect than the copending application claims and are therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds to copending application claims 1, 2-3, 7, 11, 14.
Claims 7-9 corresponds to claims 1-3.
Claims 11-13 corresponds to claims 7, 1, (10,11).
Claims 16-17 and 20 corresponds to claims 16-17 and 20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 7-10, 13-18, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21, 22, 21, 24, 21, (28,29), 32, 34, (35,36), 37, 38, 40 of copending Application No. 18/130,815 in view of Duque et al (US PG Pub No. 2015/0081604).
Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds to copending application claim 21, 22 and 29. Claim 1 differs by limitations of wherein for at least some of the user records, the user record does not include data representing socio-economic or demographic status.
In similar filed of endeavor, Duque et al teaches wherein for at least some of the user records, the user record does not include data representing socio-economic or demographic status (i.e. users need not register demographic information, so this information may be unknown for a given registered user. Furthermore, socio-economic information is not included in registered information) (Para. 0025). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention for the common knowledge purpose of enabling targeting of users based on their video viewing patterns and the content and subject matter of the video they watch.
Claims 7-10 correspond to claims 22, 21, 24, 21, respectively.
Claim 13 corresponds to claims 28 and 29.
Claims 14-15 correspond to claims 32, 34.
Claim 16 corresponds to claims 35 and 36.
Claims 17-18 and 20 correspond to claims 37, 38 and 40.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1, 7-10, 12-14, 16-18, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim (1, 2, 7, 11, 14), 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, (9-10), 13, 16, 17, 18, 20 of copending Application No. 18/130,822, in view of Duque et al (US PG Pub No. 2015/0081604).
Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds to copending application claims 1, 2, 7, 11 and 14.
Claim 1 differs by limitations of one or more of a plurality of user segments.
In similar field of endeavor, Duque et al teaches categorizing user into one or more of a plurality of user segments (i.e. the demographics analysis module 119 might predict, for a given anonymous user, that the user's viewing history over some prior time period indicates with strong probability that the user is a female with an age between 13 and 17 years) (Para. 0042, 0068, 0073-76). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claim by specifically categorizing user into one or more of a plurality of user segments for the purpose of enabling targeting of users based on their video viewing patterns and the content and subject matter of the video they watch.
Claims 7-9 correspond to claims 1, 2, 3, respectively.
Claim 11-14 corresponds to claims 7, 8, (9,10), 13, respectively.
Claims 16-18 correspond to claims 16-18.
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 7-9, 11-18, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (1, 4-5, 11, 13), 3-5, 11-18, 20 of copending Application No. 18/130,861 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant application claims are broader in every aspect than the copending application claims and are therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds to copending application claims 1, 4-5, 11, 13.
Claims 7-9 correspond to claims 3-5, respectively.
Claims 11-18 correspond to claims 11-18.
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 7-8, 11-18, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (1, 5, 10), 1, 1, 5, 6, (7,1), 9, 11, (11, 12), 13, 15, 16 of Patent No. 12,328,465, in view of Duque et al (US PG Pub No. 2015/0081604).
Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds to patent claims 1, 5 and 10.
Claim 1 differs by limitations of one or more of a plurality of user segments.
In similar field of endeavor, Duque et al teaches categorizing user into one or more of a plurality of user segments (i.e. the demographics analysis module 119 might predict, for a given anonymous user, that the user's viewing history over some prior time period indicates with strong probability that the user is a female with an age between 13 and 17 years) (Para. 0042, 0068, 0073-76). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claim by specifically categorizing user into one or more of a plurality of user segments for the purpose of enabling targeting of users based on their video viewing patterns and the content and subject matter of the video they watch.
Claims 7-8 correspond to claim 1.
Claim 11-18 corresponds to claims 5, 6, (1,7), 9, 11, (11, 12), 13, 15, respectively.
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 20.
Claims 1, 7-9, 11-18, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 5, (1,3), 8-10, 13, 15-18, 20 of copending Application No. 18/130,857 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant application claims are broader in every aspect than the copending application claims and are therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds to copending application claims 1, 5, 8, 10.
Claims 7-9 correspond to claims 1, 5, (1,3), respectively.
Claims 11-18 correspond to claims 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18.
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 7-9, 13-16, 18, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (1, 3-4, 11 and 14), 1, 3, 4, (10,11), 13, 15, 17, 18, 20 of copending Application No. 18/130,833 (reference application), in view of Duque et al.
Claim 1 corresponds to claims 1, 3-4, 11 and 14. Claim 1 differs by limitations of wherein for at least some of the user records, the user record does not include data representing socio-economic or demographic status.
In similar filed of endeavor, Duque et al teaches wherein for at least some of the user records, the user record does not include data representing socio-economic or demographic status (i.e. users need not register demographic information, so this information may be unknown for a given registered user. Furthermore, socio-economic information is not included in registered information) (Para. 0025). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention for the common knowledge purpose of enabling targeting of users based on their video viewing patterns and the content and subject matter of the video they watch.
Claims 7-9 correspond to claims 1, 3, 4, respectively.
Claims 13-16 correspond to claims (10,11), 13, 15, 17.
Claims 18, 20 correspond to claims 18, 20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 7-8, 11-18, 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (1, 2, 6, 9, 13 and 14), 1, 2, 6, 7, (8,9), 12, 14, (14, 15), 16, 17, 20 of copending Application No. 19/204,275 in view of Duque et al (US PG Pub No. 2015/0081604).
Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds to copending application claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 13 and 14.
Claim 1 differs by limitations of one or more of a plurality of user segments.
In similar field of endeavor, Duque et al teaches categorizing user into one or more of a plurality of user segments (i.e. the demographics analysis module 119 might predict, for a given anonymous user, that the user's viewing history over some prior time period indicates with strong probability that the user is a female with an age between 13 and 17 years) (Para. 0042, 0068, 0073-76). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claim by specifically categorizing user into one or more of a plurality of user segments for the purpose of enabling targeting of users based on their video viewing patterns and the content and subject matter of the video they watch.
Claims 7-8 correspond to claims 1, 2, respectively.
Claim 11-15 corresponds to claims 6, 7, (8-9), 12, 14, respectively.
Claims 16-18 correspond to claims (14,15), 16, 17.
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duque et al (US PG Pub No. 2015/0081604), in view of Shin et al (US Patent No. 9,148,706).
Regarding claim 1, Duque et al teaches a computer-implemented method (Para. 0080 and 0083) of using affinity profiles to obtain audience segments (Abstract), the method comprising:
obtaining or generating affinity profiles for a plurality of users of a content distribution system (i.e. a demographics analysis module 119 that analyzes the videos 117 and prior video viewing periods as described in the view log 118 and, based on the analysis, generates classifier models that predict the demographic attributes of a particular video or user) (Para. 0025-27, 0034-38 and 0071-76),
wherein the affinity profiles comprise an affinity profile for each user of a plurality of users and the affinity profiles are based on user records that represent at least one of television, other content selection or viewing by the users using user devices (i.e. the user database 114 is responsible for maintaining a record of all registered users of the video hosting service. Registered users include content providers 130 and/or users who simply view videos on the video hosting service), (Para. 0025),
wherein the user record for each user comprises or represents content metadata associated with the television content or other content selected by the user, and the content metadata is obtained from a stored ontology (i.e. registered users include content providers 130 and/or users who simply view videos on the video hosting service and view log 118 stores information describing each access to any given video 117 by any user), (Para. 0025-26)
wherein for at least some of the user records, the user record does not include data representing socio-economic or demographic status (i.e. users need not register demographic information, so this information may be unknown for a given registered user. Furthermore, socio-economic information is not included in registered information) (Para. 0025), and
categorizing each user into one or more of a plurality of user segments based on their affinity profile (i.e. the demographics analysis module 119 might predict, for a given anonymous user, that the user's viewing history over some prior time period indicates with strong probability that the user is a female with an age between 13 and 17 years) (Para. 0042, 0068, 0073-76) and
transmitting, by a content distribution system, television content or other content to each of the plurality of users using a content distribution system (Para. 0021-22),
wherein each user device displays an electronic programme guide (EPG) or other user interface that is operable by a user to select one or more items of television content or the other items of content (i.e. Front end interface 102 provides the interface between client 135 and the various components of the video hosting service) (Para. 0023), and in response to the selections, the distribution system distributes the selection of the items of television content or the other items of content to the user devices for viewing by the users during content viewing sessions (i.e. Front end interface 102 provides the interface between client 135 and the various components of the video hosting service ) (Para. 0019, 0021-23).
The reference is unclear with respect to wherein each affinity profile comprises at least one selected affinity category or affinity category score, and the affinity categories are selected from a stored set of affinity categories, each representing a user's affinity for a respective subject area.
Shin et al teaches each affinity profile comprises at least one selected affinity category or affinity category score(i.e. audience profiles comprises VScore including Geography/Meta 209), and the affinity categories are selected from a stored set of affinity categories (Figure 1), each representing a user's affinity for a respective subject area (i.e. analyzing viewing patterns to categorize and organize videos into relevant segments related brands, products, activities, lifestyles resulting in VScore metrics) (Col.3 lines 11-48, col.4 lines 6-57, Col.5 line 17-Col.6 line 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of enabling targeting of users based on their video viewing patterns and the content and subject matter of the video they watch.
Regarding claim 2, Duque and Shin, the combination teaches wherein at least some of the user segments represent at least one of: an area of interest or a combination of areas of interest, a demographic category; an amount of viewing or other consumption of content; a time period when consumption of content is most likely (i.e. Demographic attribute value) (Duque: Para. 0042, 0068, 0073-76).
Regarding claim 3, Duque and Shin, the combination teaches wherein each user is assigned to at least one segment or to a plurality of segments (i.e. identify value of the demographic attribute for the viewer) (Duque: Para. 0042, 0068, 0073-76).
Regarding claim 4, Duque and Shin, the combination teaches selecting at least one user segment, or a combination of user segments, that are most likely to consume the selection of the items of television content or the other items of content (Duque: Para. 0019, 0023, 0062 and 0066).
Regarding claim 5, Duque and Shin, the combination teaches selecting at least one user segment, or a combination of user segments, that are most likely to consume content during a selected time period (Duque: Para. 0062 and 0065-66).
Regarding claim 6, Duque and Shin, the combination teaches determining a bespoke user segment for the selection of the items of television content or the other items of content based on the content metadata associated with the selection of the items of television content or the other items of content, and assigning users to the bespoke user segment based on at least the affinity profiles of the users (i.e. analyzing viewing patterns to categorize and organize videos into relevant segments related brands, products, activities, lifestyles resulting in VScore metrics that is adapted into a profile to facilitate targeting users based on their video viewing patterns and the content and subject matter of videos they watch) (Duque: Para. 0062-66 and Shin: Figure 2; Col.3 lines 27-62, Col.5 line 17-Col.6 line 2).
Regarding claim 7, Duque and Shin, the combination teaches for each of a plurality of the user devices, monitoring user activity including identifying content selected for viewing by the users of the user devices (Duque: Para. 0026);
obtaining the content metadata concerning the selection of the items of television content or the other items of content, the content metadata representing at least some properties of the selection of the items of television content or the other items of content (Duque: Para. 0008, 0024, 0049-50);
generating or updating user records for the users, the user records comprising or representing at least one of the user activity or the content metadata (Duque: Para. 0026-27, 0051-65 for generating log);
processing the user records to generate the affinity profiles for the users based on the user records (Duque: Para. 0026, 0034-38 and 0071-76).
Regarding claim 8, Duque and Shin, the combination teaches wherein each user device displays the electronic program guide (EPG) or the other user interface that is operable by a user to select the items of television content or the other items of content and in response to the selections the distribution system distributes the selection of the items of television content or the other items of content to the user devices for viewing by the users during content viewing sessions (Duque: Para. 0019, 0026 and 0076-77).
Regarding claim 9, Duque and Shin, the combination teaches wherein the other user interface is operable by a user to select one or more items of content of content types other than television content (Duque: Para. 0019),
the obtaining of the content metadata, the generating or updating of the user record, and the processing of the user record to generate the affinity profile are performed using the content metadata obtained for both selected items of television content and selected items of content of the other content types (Duque: Para. 0008, 0024, 0049-50 and Shin: Col.3 lines 10-16), and
the other content types comprises at least one of computer games, books, music, spoken word content, other audio content, newspapers, or magazines (Shin: Figure 1 [101]; Col.3 lines 10-16).
Regarding claim 10, Duque and Shin, the combination teaches wherein the categorizing each user into one or more of the plurality of user segments is based on the user records of the users (i.e. the demographics analysis module 119 might predict, for a given anonymous user, that the user's viewing history over some prior time period indicates with strong probability that the user is a female with an age between 13 and 17 years) (Duque: Para. 0042, 0068, 0073-76 and Shin: Shin: Figure 2; Col.3 lines 27-62, Col.5 line 17-Col.6 line 2).
Regarding claim 11, Duque and Shin, the combination teaches wherein generating of the affinity profiles is independent of, or is performed without taking into account, data representing socio-economic or demographic status of the users (Duque: Para. 0029 and 0073).
Regarding claim 12, Duque and Shin, the combination teaches wherein at least one of a), b) or c):a) the user record for each user does not include any data representing socio- economic or demographic status of the user; b) the user record for each user is anonymous; c) the obtaining of the content metadata, the generating or updating of user records, and the processing of the user records to generate affinity profiles are performed by processing circuitry that does not have access to at least one of or all of data representing socio-economic or demographic status of the users or identity of the users (Duque: Para. 0029 and 0073).
Regarding claim 13, Duque and Shin, the combination teaches wherein at least one of; the content metadata concerning the selection of the items of television content or the other items of content is obtained from a stored ontology that can be used as the content metadata to represent the items of television content or the other content (Duque: Para. 0008).
The combination is unclear with respect to the stored set of affinity categories comprises at least 100 affinity categories or sub- categories; and metadata that includes at least 10,000 features.
However, the examiner takes official notice that both concepts and advantages are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination by specifically providing the stored set of affinity categories comprises at least 100 affinity categories or sub-categories; and metadata that includes at least 10,000 features before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the common knowledge purpose of allowing a more detailed categorization of items according to a more detailed amount of affinity categories.
Regarding claim 14, Duque and Shin, the combination teaches wherein the user record comprises or represent user activity for different time windows during a day or week, and the method comprises generating different affinity profiles for the user for the different time windows (Duque: Para. 0009 and 0051-58).
Regarding claim 15, Duque and Shin, the combination teaches wherein the affinity profile for each user comprises a set of scores, each score being for a respective one of the affinity categories (Shin: Col.4 lines 40-57).
Regarding claim 16, Duque and Shin, the combination teaches wherein each user is a user account, a plurality of individuals may have access to the user account and/or wherein a plurality of user devices may be associated with the user account, and wherein the affinity profile for the user account is based on selection of content by the plurality of individuals and/or using the plurality of user devices (Duque: Para. 0025-26).
Regarding claim 17, Duque and Shin, the combination teaches selecting additional television content or other content to push to the user based on the determined affinity profile for the user (Shin: Col. 4 lines 28-39).
Regarding claim 18, Duque and Shin, the combination teaches outputting the affinity profiles for the plurality of users and/or the audience category, via an API or operator interface thereby making the affinity profiles available to a third party external to the content distribution system (Duque: Para. 0078).
Regarding claims 19-20, see the rejection of claim 1.
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 KUNAL LANGHNOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 5:00PM ET.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571) 272-7527. 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.
/KUNAL LANGHNOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425