DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply in view of newly found reference McFarland being used in the current rejection. See the new rejection below.
Double Patenting
Claims 20-22, 24-28, 30-32, 34-38, 40, 42-43, and 45 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-7, and 9-11 of US Patent 9,854,312 in view of US PG Pub 2007/0162502 (Thomas) as shown in the previous Office Action mailed on 05/21/2024 along with updated rejection shown below.
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 20-22, 25, 28, 30-32, 35, 38, 40, and 45 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 2007/0162502 to Thomas (“Thomas”) in view of US PG Pub 2007/0204308 to Nicholas (“Nicholas”) and US Patent 7,756,753 to McFarland (“McFarland”).
Regarding claim 20, “A computer-implemented method comprising: identifying a video content item that is relevant to a user profile” reads on the method for selecting content for a media library (abstract) disclosed by Thomas and represented in Fig. 8. Thomas further discloses (¶0079) that the interactive media guidance application provides a playlist of recommended content identified based on the user's profile.
As to “determining whether the video content item is available for access to the user profile” Thomas discloses (¶0061, ¶0082, ¶0090) that the system determines if the user’s selected content is available or unavailable.
As to “based on determining that the video content item is not available for access to the user profile, refraining from generating a video shortcut object for the video content item” Thomas discloses (¶0091) that when the user’s selected content is not available, the system does not add it to the media library until it becomes available; (¶0095) the media library page can include multiple media libraries/listings (Fig. 8 – 802, 804, 806) where (¶0091) separate listing is used for the content that is not yet available, and when it becomes available, the content entry is removed from the separate listing, and added to the media library listing page.
As to “based on determining that the video content item is available for access to the user profile, generating the video shortcut object for the video content item that initiates a content retrieval process for retrieval of the video content item” Thomas discloses (¶0061, ¶0082, ¶0090) that when the content becomes available, it marks the content to indicate the availability to the user and stores the bookmarks in the media library as represented in Fig. 8; (¶0094) upon selecting the available content bookmark, the system directs the device to connect to the appropriate content source and download the content.
As to “generating for display, in a menu, a menu item corresponding to the video content item, the menu item based on the video shortcut object generated for the video content item” Thomas discloses (¶0090-¶0091, ¶0102) that when the selected content becomes available, the device automatically adds a new entry bookmark associated with the content in the media library listing (menu) as represented in Fig. 8.
As to “based on determining that input from a user associated with the user profile selecting the menu item from the menu has been received, executing the content retrieval process and generating for display the retrieved video content item” Thomas discloses (¶0106) that when the user selects the bookmark that was downloaded, the content may be accessed and played back.
Thomas meets all the limitations of the claim except “generating for display a predefined list of reasons for sending the video shortcut object to one or more devices associated with one or more additional user profiles; and based on determining that input from the user associated with the user profile selecting the first predefined reason from the predefined list of reasons has been received: sending, to the one or more devices, the video shortcut object for the video content item and a message comprising the selected first predefined reason.” However, Nicholas discloses (¶0152, ¶0176) that the user recommends a feed to a friend where the feed is also associated with a message; (¶0225-¶0228) the user selects an option from the list of options that discloses describes the feed such as thumbs up/down, scale of seven options from worse to best, or work/home feeds as represented in Fig. 39. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify Thomas’ system by selecting one of the predefined options associated with the content and sending/recommending content along with the message as taught by Nicholas in order to recommend content and inform the friend/user about the content.
Combination of Thomas and Nicholas meets all the limitations of the claim except “wherein a first predefined reason of the plurality of reasons indicates that the video content item is related to a different video content item; and sending…a message comprising the selected first predefined reason, the message indicating a title of the different video content item.” However, McFarland discloses (12:4-33; 7:57-64; 13:55-58) that upon detection of the content item, which is similar to the content item on the wish list of user’s buddy, the user and the buddy of the user are provided with a notification/message/email that informs/recommends the users that content item similar to the item on the wish list of the buddy is found along with the title of the content item as represented in Fig. 9 (elements 902-906) and Fig. 10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify Thomas and Nicholas’ systems by sending a message to an additional user informing the user about the title of the related content item as taught by McFarland in order to taken into consideration for purposes of evaluating whether the second user would be interested in viewing particular movie/video titles listed in the first user's queue (McFarland - 2:13-16).
Regarding claim 21, “The method of claim 20, wherein the video content item is identified as relevant to the user profile based on determining that the video content item is of a preferred genre or media type associated with the user profile” Thomas discloses (¶0067, ¶0079) that the content are identified using their genre and provided to the user in a suitable playlist.
Regarding claim 22, “The method of claim 20, wherein the one or more additional user profiles are within a network associated with the user profile” Thomas discloses (¶0096) that the user shares the content with other users where the other users can access the content as well.
Regarding claim 25, “The method of claim 20, wherein executing the content retrieval process includes at least one of: retrieving the video content item from a video on demand service, downloading the video content item, scheduling a recording of the video content item, purchasing rights to view the video content item, or receiving a stream of the video content item” Thomas discloses (claim 10) that the media content is available from the Internet or a video-on-demand server; (¶0082) the system automatically download the content when it becomes available.
Regarding claim 28, “The method of claim 20, wherein: executing the content retrieval process comprises receiving the video content item from a web-based source” Thomas discloses (¶0008, ¶0067, claim 10) that the media content is retrieved from the web server/Internet source.
As to “the method further comprises presenting, in the menu with the menu item, a plurality of menu items corresponding to recorded content associated with the user profile” Thomas discloses (¶0073, ¶0089, ¶0092) that the user is provided with the recorded video content bookmarks in the media library as represented in Fig. 8.
Regarding claim 30, see rejection similar to claim 20.
Regarding claim 31, see rejection similar to claim 21.
Regarding claim 32, see rejection similar to claim 22.
Regarding claim 35, see rejection similar to claim 25.
Regarding claim 38, see rejection similar to claim 28.
Regarding claim 40, The method of claim 20, further comprising: receiving, at a first time, an electronic message from the user, wherein the electronic message comprises an indication of subject matter related to the video content item, wherein each of the identifying the video content item that is relevant to a user profile, and the determining whether the video content item is available for access to the user profile occurs automatically, without receiving user input” Thomas discloses (¶0082) that the system automatically download the content when it becomes available, and Nicholas discloses (¶0128) that the feed formatted content is sent via an email where the subject of the email is changed into a feed item title.
Regarding claim 45, “The method of claim 20, wherein: a second predefined reason from the predefined list of reasons indicates that the video content item is the favorite show of the user associated with the user profile” Nicholas discloses (¶0152, ¶0175-¶0176) that the user’s personal favorite site items are created and indexed to the personal favorite sites feed of a user, where the user recommends the favorite feed item to a friend where the feed is also associated with a message.
Claims 24 and 34 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Nicholas and McFarland, and further in view of US PG Pub 2010/0199310 to Newell (“Newell”).
Regarding claim 24, “The method of claim 20, wherein: the video content item is identified as relevant to the user profile based on receiving a recommendation related to the video shortcut object from a different user profile” Thomas discloses (¶0060, ¶0079) that the content provider monitors the content that is placed in a user's media library and send pre-emptive messages to one or more user devices that recommended content based on the user's history and content placed in the media library.
Combination of Thomas, Nicholas, and McFarland meets all the limitations of the claim except “the method further comprises limiting ability of, or preventing, one or more other user profiles from sharing recommendations with the user profile.” However, Newell discloses (¶0050-¶0051) that the first user is prevented from delivering the recommendation to the user(s) not associated with the first user as represented in Fig. 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify Thomas, Nicholas, and McFarland’s systems by preventing user from sharing recommendations with the user profile as taught by Newell in order to obtain recommendation only from a friend or other close acquaintance (¶0003).
Regarding claim 34, see rejection similar to claim 24.
Claims 26 and 36 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Nicholas and McFarland, and further in view of US PG Pub 2007/0150930 to Koivisto (“Koivisto”).
Regarding claim 26, combination of Thomas, Nicholas, and McFarland meets all the limitations of the claim except “The method of claim 20, further comprising determining the menu in which to present the menu item based on one or more of: a specific menu specified by a user command input, or predetermined criteria.” However, Koivisto discloses (¶0154, ¶0162) that the user bookmarks the content and then save the bookmark and personally selected content to their own bookmark folders (menu), where the bookmarking is selected by the user via keypad on the remote controller. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify Thomas, Nicholas, and McFarland’s systems by storing the shortcut object in a menu specified by the user command input as taught by Koivisto in order to provide the user with the option of saving his/her shortcuts in his/her favorite menu/folder.
Regarding claim 36, see rejection similar to claim 26.
Claims 27 and 37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Nicholas and McFarland, and further in view of US Patent 5,805,235 to Bedard (“Bedard”).
Regarding claim 27, combination of Thomas, Nicholas, and McFarland meets all the limitations of the claim except “The method of claim 20, further comprising, responsive to determining that the video content item is no longer retrievable via the content retrieval process, or to determining that an expiration date specified by a provider of the video content item has been reached, deleting the video shortcut object.” However, Bedard discloses (4:19-21; 8:5-8) that the bookmark is stored only when the program is available/running, when the program ends/expires, the bookmark is automatically removed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify Thomas, Nicholas, and McFarland’s systems by storing program shortcut only when the program is available as taught by Bedard in order to improve memory usage.
Regarding claim 37, see rejection similar to claim 27.
Claim 42 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Nicholas and McFarland, and further in view of US PG Pub 2005/0183034 to Chitsaz (“Chitsaz”).
Regarding claim 42, combination of Thomas, Nicholas, and McFarland meets all the limitations of the claim except “The method of claim 20, further comprising determining a menu in which to present the menu item based on predetermined criteria.” However, Chitsaz discloses (¶0038) that the system displays a window page with plurality of menus as shown in Fig. 4 (i.e., File, Edit, View, Project, etc.), where (¶0039-¶0041) the system determines if a menu item should be added under Root Level of View Menu (particular menu) for quicker access or under cascading menu of View Menu; (¶0039-¶0040) the system comprises root level menu and cascading menu styles where the frequently used menu items are presented at the root level (particular menu) for quicker access (by using lesser number of input commands) as represented in Figs. 4-7. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify Thomas, Nicholas, and McFarland’s systems by selecting folder to present the item based on a number of input commands to access the particular menu as taught by Chitsaz in order to quickly and efficiently access desired information/item presented in the menu (¶0040).
Claim 43 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas in view of Nicholas, McFarland, and Chitsaz, and further in view of US PG Pub 2008/0072164 to Park (“Park”).
Regarding claim 43, combination of Thomas, Nicholas, McFarland, and Chitsaz meets all the limitations of the claim except “The method of claim 42, wherein the predetermined criteria comprise at least one of: a number of items already present in the menu or a number of input commands required to reach the menu.” However, Park discloses (¶0057) that the user’s favorite internet content item is stored as bookmark in the bookmark folder; (¶0077) when the total number of bookmarks (population density of items) in a bookmark folder (particular menu) exceeds the maximum value, the remaining/newer bookmarks are stored in a new bookmark folder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify Thomas, Nicholas, and Chitsaz' systems by selecting folder to present/store the item based on number of items already present in the menu as taught by Park in order to provide editing of the bookmark folder so the bookmarks can be added and located with ease (¶0003).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PINKAL R CHOKSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-5pm.
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 T 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.
/PINKAL R CHOKSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425