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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/19/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 31-35, 38-45 and 48-50 are pending and have been examined.
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 31-35, 38-45 and 48-50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,711,583 in view of Shibuya et al. (US 2019/0107993), herein Shibuya, in view of Tuukkanen (US 2015/0088423) in view of Aggarwal et al. (US 2018/0109920), herein Aggarwal.
For example, note the following relationship between claim 1 of the instant application and the patented claims.
Application No. 18/206,230
U.S. Patent No. 11,711,583
31. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
1. A method of providing content for a duration of a variable-duration activity, the method comprising:
receiving a first input, the first input further including a start cue for the first session of the variable-duration activity;
receiving an input and identifying a second start cue;
determining an estimated duration of the first session of the variable-duration activity based on a plurality of previous sessions of variable-duration activities having the same variable-duration activity type;
determining an average time for the variable-duration activity based on time differences between the corresponding first start cue and first stop cue;
10. The method of claim 1 further comprising recording a second stop cue and updating the average time for the variable-duration activity based on a second time difference between the second start cue and the second stop cue.
identifying a plurality of content items to provide during the first session of the variable-duration activity, the total runtime of the plurality of content items being substantially the same as the estimated duration of the first session of the variable-duration activity; and
(claim 1) identifying a plurality of content items to provide during a second session of the variable-duration activity, the total runtime of the plurality of content items being substantially the same as the average time for the variable-duration activity; and
based on receiving the input including the start cue, providing for consumption the plurality of content items.
providing for consumption the plurality of content items during the second session of the variable-duration activity.
However, the patented claims do not explicitly teach receiving a first input including a variable-duration activity type corresponding to a first session of a variable-duration activity.
In an analogous art, Shibuya, which discloses a system for activity-based content provisioning, clearly teaches receiving a first input including a variable-duration activity type corresponding to a first session of a variable-duration activity. (Fig. 2: The user situation recognition section 10a recognizes the type of activity the user is performing, [0047], in response the determination section 10c starts information presentation to the user, [0050], [0081].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claims by receiving a first input including a variable-duration activity type corresponding to a first session of a variable-duration activity, as taught by Shibuya, for the benefit of recognizing the activity currently being performed by the user.
However, the patented claims in view of Shibuya do not explicitly teach the plurality of content items identified based at least in part on a user profile corresponding to the first input.
In an analogous art, Tuukkanen, which discloses a system for activity-based recommendations, clearly teaches the plurality of content items identified based at least in part on a user profile corresponding to the first input. (Recommendation of content is based on user profile data 215, [0051], [0054], [0089].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claims in view of Shibuya by the plurality of content items identified based at least in part on a user profile corresponding to the first input, as taught by Tuukkanen, for the benefit of providing content items that are of interest to the user.
However, the patented claims in view of Shibuya and Tuukkanen do not explicitly teach the plurality of content items are identified based on the variable-duration activity type.
In an analogous art, Aggarwal, which discloses a system for activity-based recommendations, clearly teaches the plurality of content items identified based on the variable-duration activity type. (The recommendations are based on the activity type 128, [0041], [0042].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claims in view of Shibuya and Tuukkanen by the plurality of content items identified based on the variable-duration activity type, as taught by Aggarwal, for the benefit of providing content which the user is currently able to consume.
Claim 32 of the application corresponds to claims 1 and 10 of the patent in view of Shibuya, Tuukkanen, Aggarwal.
Claim 33 of the application corresponds to claims 1 and 10 of the patent in view of Shibuya [0039], [0047], [0072], Tuukkanen, Aggarwal.
Claim 34 of the application corresponds to claim 4 of the patent in view of Shibuya, Tuukkanen, Aggarwal.
Claim 35 of the application corresponds to claim 5 of the patent in view of Shibuya, Tuukkanen, Aggarwal.
Claim 38 of the application corresponds to claims 1 and 10 of the patent in view of Shibuya [0068], Tuukkanen, Aggarwal.
Consider claim 39, the patented claims in view of Shibuya clearly teach determining the first session of the variable-duration activity.
However, the patented claims in view of Shibuya do not explicitly teach in response to determining that the first session of the variable-duration activity has extended beyond the estimated duration: identifying one or more additional content items; and providing for consumption the one or more additional content items.
In an analogous art, Tuukkanen, which discloses a system for activity-based recommendations, clearly teaches in response to determining that the first session of the variable-duration activity has extended beyond the estimated duration: identifying one or more additional content items; and providing for consumption the one or more additional content items. (If the determined travel time increases the user is presented with additional content items, [0092].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the patented claims in view of Shibuya by in response to determining that the first session of the variable-duration activity has extended beyond the estimated duration: identifying one or more additional content items; and providing for consumption the one or more additional content items, as taught by Tuukkanen, for the benefit of providing content items that are of interest to the user.
Claim 40 of the application corresponds to claim 10 of the patent in view of Shibuya, Tuukkanen, Aggarwal.
Claim 41 of the application corresponds to claims 11 and 20 of the patent in view of Shibuya, Tuukkanen, Aggarwal.
Claim 42 of the application corresponds to claims 11 and 20 of the patent in view of Shibuya, Tuukkanen, Aggarwal.
Claim 43 of the application corresponds to claims 11 and 20 of the patent in view of Shibuya [0039], [0047], [0072], Tuukkanen, Aggarwal.
Claim 44 of the application corresponds to claim 14 of the patent in view of Shibuya, Tuukkanen, Aggarwal.
Claim 45 of the application corresponds to claim 15 of the patent in view of Shibuya, Tuukkanen, Aggarwal.
Claim 48 of the application corresponds to claims 11 and 20 of the patent in view of Shibuya [0068], Tuukkanen, Aggarwal.
Claim 49 of the application corresponds to claims 11 and 20 of the patent in view of Shibuya, Tuukkanen [0092], Aggarwal.
Claim 50 of the application corresponds to claim 20 of the patent in view of Shibuya, Tuukkanen, Aggarwal.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 31-35, 38-45 and 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibuya (US 2019/0107993) in view of Tuukkanen (US 2015/0088423) in view of Aggarwal et al. (US 2018/0109920), herein Aggarwal.
Consider claim 31, Shibuya clearly teaches a method (Fig. 6) comprising:
receiving a first input including a variable-duration activity type corresponding to a first session of a variable-duration activity, the first input further including a start cue for the first session of the variable-duration activity; (Fig. 2: The user situation recognition section 10a recognizes the type of activity the user is performing, [0047], in response the determination section 10c starts information presentation to the user, [0050], [0081].)
determining an estimated duration of the first session of the variable-duration activity based on a plurality of previous sessions of variable-duration activities having the same variable-duration activity type; (Fig. 2: The estimation section 10d estimates the duration of the activity based on past action history of the user or all users, [0053], [0055], [0056], [0083].)
identifying a plurality of content items to provide during the first session of the variable-duration activity, the total runtime of the plurality of content items being substantially the same as the estimated duration of the first session of the variable-duration activity; (Fig. 2: The adjustment section 10e selects content items to provide to the user to conform to the estimated duration available, [0066], [0084].) and
based on receiving the input including the start cue, providing for consumption the plurality of content items. (Fig. 2: The sound synthesizing section 10g outputs the selected content items to speaker 15, [0070], [0085].)
However, Shibuya does not explicitly teach the plurality of content items are identified based at least in part on a user profile corresponding to the first input.
In an analogous art, Tuukkanen, which discloses a system for activity-based recommendations, clearly teaches the plurality of content items are identified based at least in part on a user profile corresponding to the first input. (Recommendation of content is based on user profile data 215, [0051], [0054], [0089].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shibuya by the plurality of content items are identified based at least in part on a user profile corresponding to the first input, as taught by Tuukkanen, for the benefit of providing content items that are of interest to the user.
However, Shibuya combined with Tuukkanen does not explicitly teach the plurality of content items are identified based on the variable-duration activity type.
In an analogous art, Aggarwal, which discloses a system for activity-based recommendations, clearly teaches the plurality of content items are identified based on the variable-duration activity type. (The recommendations are based on the activity type 128, [0041], [0042].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shibuya combined with Tuukkanen by the plurality of content items are identified based on the variable-duration activity type, as taught by Aggarwal, for the benefit of providing content which the user is currently able to consume.
Consider claim 32, Shibuya combined with Tuukkanen and Aggarwal clearly teaches the estimated duration of the first session of the variable-duration activity comprises an average duration of the plurality of previous sessions of variable-duration activities having the same variable-duration activity type. (Fig. 4: The duration estimate is based on past action history of the user performing the activity, [0055]-[0057] Shibuya.)
Consider claim 33, Shibuya combined with Tuukkanen and Aggarwal clearly teaches the first input including the start cue comprises an audio input. (Fig. 2: Input is received by microphone 12, [0039], [0047], [0072] Shibuya.)
Consider claim 34, Shibuya combined with Tuukkanen and Aggarwal clearly teaches the at least one of the plurality of content items has a variable runtime. (Fig. 2: The adjustment section 10e may adjust the run time of the content items, [0068] Shibuya.)
Consider claim 35, Shibuya clearly teaches the plurality of content items.
However, Shibuya does not explicitly teach the plurality of content items comprises a plurality of videos in a playlist.
In an analogous art, Tuukkanen, which discloses a system for activity-based recommendations, clearly teaches the plurality of content items comprises a plurality of videos in a playlist. (Selections window includes a list of video content to be played, [0025], [0079], [0082].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shibuya by the plurality of content items comprises a plurality of videos in a playlist, as taught by Tuukkanen, for the benefit of including a greater variety of content which may be of interest to the user.
Consider claim 38, Shibuya combined with Tuukkanen and Aggarwal clearly teaches in response to determining that the total runtime of the plurality of content items is greater than the estimated duration of the first session of the variable-duration activity, shortening a length of a content item of the plurality of content items. (Fig. 2: The adjustment section 10e may adjust the run time of the content items, [0068] Shibuya.)
Consider claim 39, Shibuya clearly teaches determining the first session of the variable-duration activity.
However, Shibuya does not explicitly teach in response to determining that the first session of the variable-duration activity has extended beyond the estimated duration: identifying one or more additional content items; and providing for consumption the one or more additional content items.
In an analogous art, Tuukkanen, which discloses a system for activity-based recommendations, clearly teaches in response to determining that the first session of the variable-duration activity has extended beyond the estimated duration: identifying one or more additional content items; and providing for consumption the one or more additional content items. (If the determined travel time increases the user is presented with additional content items, [0092].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shibuya by in response to determining that the first session of the variable-duration activity has extended beyond the estimated duration: identifying one or more additional content items; and providing for consumption the one or more additional content items, as taught by Tuukkanen, for the benefit of providing content items that are of interest to the user.
Consider claim 40, Shibuya combined with Tuukkanen and Aggarwal clearly teaches receiving a third input including a stop cue for the first session of the variable-duration activity; and updating an estimated duration associated with the variable-duration activity type corresponding to the first session based on a time different between the start cue and the stop cue. (Fig. 4: The start and stop times of each action are recorded to determine the estimated duration, [0055], [0056] Shibuya.)
Consider claim 41, Shibuya clearly teaches a system (Fig. 2) comprising:
input/output circuitry (Fig. 2: Control section 10, [0045]) configured to receive a first input including a variable-duration activity type corresponding to a first session of a variable-duration activity, the first input further including a start cue for the first session of the variable-duration activity; (Fig. 2: The user situation recognition section 10a recognizes the type of activity the user is performing, [0047], in response the determination section 10c starts information presentation to the user, [0050], [0081].)and
processing circuitry (Fig. 2: Control section 10, [0045]) configured to:
determine an estimated duration of the first session of the variable-duration activity based on a plurality of previous sessions of variable-duration activities having the same variable-duration activity type; (Fig. 2: The estimation section 10d estimates the duration of the activity based on past action history of the user or all users, [0053], [0055], [0056], [0083].) and
identify a plurality of content items to provide during the first session of the variable-duration activity, the total runtime of the plurality of content items being substantially the same as the estimated duration of the first session of the variable-duration activity; (Fig. 2: The adjustment section 10e selects content items to provide to the user to conform to the estimated duration available, [0066], [0084].)
wherein the input/output circuitry (Fig. 2: Control section 10, [0045]) is further configured to:
based on receiving the input including the start cue, provide for consumption the plurality of content items. (Fig. 2: The sound synthesizing section 10g outputs the selected content items to speaker 15, [0070], [0085].)
However, Shibuya does not explicitly teach the plurality of content items are identified based at least in part on a user profile corresponding to the first input.
In an analogous art, Tuukkanen, which discloses a system for activity-based recommendations, clearly teaches the plurality of content items are identified based at least in part on a user profile corresponding to the first input. (Recommendation of content is based on user profile data 215, [0051], [0054], [0089].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shibuya by the plurality of content items are identified based at least in part on a user profile corresponding to the first input, as taught by Tuukkanen, for the benefit of providing content items that are of interest to the user.
However, Shibuya combined with Tuukkanen does not explicitly teach the plurality of content items are identified based on the variable-duration activity type.
In an analogous art, Aggarwal, which discloses a system for activity-based recommendations, clearly teaches the plurality of content items are identified based on the variable-duration activity type. (The recommendations are based on the activity type 128, [0041], [0042].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Shibuya combined with Tuukkanen by the plurality of content items are identified based on the variable-duration activity type, as taught by Aggarwal, for the benefit of providing content which the user is currently able to consume.
Consider claim 42, Shibuya combined with Tuukkanen and Aggarwal clearly teaches the estimated duration of the first session of the variable-duration activity comprises an average duration of the plurality of previous sessions of variable-duration activities having the same variable-duration activity type. (Fig. 4: The duration estimate is based on past action history of the user performing the activity, [0055]-[0057] Shibuya.)
Consider claim 43, Shibuya combined with Tuukkanen and Aggarwal clearly teaches the second first input including the start cue comprises an audio input. (Fig. 2: Input is received by microphone 12, [0039], [0047], [0072] Shibuya.)
Consider claim 44, Shibuya combined with Tuukkanen and Aggarwal clearly teaches the at least one of the plurality of content items has a variable runtime. (Fig. 2: The adjustment section 10e may adjust the run time of the content items, [0068] Shibuya.)
Consider claim 45, Shibuya combined with Tuukkanen clearly teaches the plurality of content items comprises a plurality of videos in a playlist. (Selections window includes a list of video content to be played, [0025], [0079], [0082] Tuukkanen.)
Consider claim 48, Shibuya combined with Tuukkanen and Aggarwal clearly teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to: in response to determining that the total runtime of the plurality of content items is greater than the estimated duration of the first session of the variable-duration activity, shorten a length of a content item of the plurality of content items. (Fig. 2: The adjustment section 10e may adjust the run time of the content items, [0068] Shibuya.)
Consider claim 49, Shibuya combined with Tuukkanen clearly teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to, in response to determining that the first session of the variable-duration activity has extended beyond the estimated duration, identify one or more additional content items; and the input/output circuitry is further configured to provide for consumption the one or more additional content items. (If the determined travel time increases the user is presented with additional content items, [0092] Tuukkanen.)
Consider claim 50, Shibuya combined with Tuukkanen and Aggarwal clearly teaches the input/output circuity is further configured to receive a third input including a stop cue for the first session of the variable-duration activity; and the processing circuitry is further configured to update an estimated duration associated with the variable-duration activity type corresponding to the first session based on a time different between the start cue and the stop cue. (Fig. 4: The start and stop times of each action are recorded to determine the estimated duration, [0055], [0056] Shibuya.)
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights