DETAILED ACTION
Claims 51-65 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/18/2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 5/24/2024 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 51-54, 56-65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry et al. (US 2014/0223480) in view of Carbunar et al. (US 2012/0304234), and further in view of Seely et al. (US 2020/0053428).
Claim 51, Berry teaches a method comprising:
receiving, at a server (i.e. source) associated with a plurality of content providers (i.e. all sources), a user interface request associated with a user device (i.e. user connected as a subscriber), to access a media asset from a first content provider of the plurality of content providers that is specified in the request (i.e. the system aggregates content from various sources) (p. 0011-0013, 0041).
Berry is silent regarding a method comprising:
“wherein the user interface request specifies the first content provider”;
based at least in part on determining that the media asset is not available from the first content provider:
identifying, at the server, a second content provider of the plurality of content providers that provides the media asset, wherein the second content provider is not specified in the request; and
“a recommendation for the media asset not available from the first content provider, wherein the command causes a display of the recommendation without indicating that the media asset is from the second content provider”;
based at least in part on the identifying the second content provider that provides the media asset, transmitting, over a communications network, a command to cause display of a recommendation, on a display screen associated with the user device, for the media asset, wherein the command causes a display of the recommendation for the media asset from the second content provider, wherein the recommendation for the media asset is displayed without indicating that the media asset is from the second content provider.
Joong teaches a method comprising:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided provider selection as taught by Joong to allow the user to request redirect where content is received from (p. 0066).
Carbuner teaches a method comprising:
based at least in part on determining that the media asset is not available from the first content provider (i.e. not on server) (p. 0016):
identifying, at the server, a second content provider of the plurality of content providers that provides the media asset, wherein the second content provider is not specified in the request (i.e. cost effective second server) (p. 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided multiple servers as taught by Carbunar to the system of Berry to lower hosting costs (p. 0016).
Seely teaches the specific feature of:
“wherein the user interface request specifies the first content provider” (i.e. user selecting provider from a list) (p. 0021);
based at least in part on the identifying the second content provider (i.e. one of the content sources the user has access to) that provides the media asset, transmitting, over a communications network, a command to cause display of a recommendation (i.e. delivered from content source to client device), on a display screen (106) associated with the user device, for the media asset, wherein the command causes a display of the recommendation for the media asset from the second content provider, wherein the recommendation for the media asset is displayed without indicating that the media asset is from the second content provider (i.e. a source is automatically selected based on user access or user behavior, the user is not told where the content originates) (p. 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided a automatic source selection as taught by Seely to the system of Berry to allow for multiple providers to provide content within a system (p. 0041).
Claim 52, Berry teaches the method of claim 51, wherein the recommendation includes a link to the media asset stored at a server of the second content provider, and wherein the transmitting comprises transmitting the media asset from the server indicated by the link (i.e. selectable link) (p. 0041, 0065).
Claim 53, Berry teaches the method of claim 51, wherein the identifying the second content provider comprises identifying the second content provider based on a user profile indicating preference levels of the second content provider (i.e. user subscribing to content stored at a particular server) (p. 0011, 0013, 0040-0041, 0059).
Claim 54, Berry teaches the method of claim 53, further based at least in part on the receiving the user interface request to access the media asset from the first content provider:
retrieving, by the server, metadata (i.e. media asset metadata) of the media asset from one or more of the plurality of content providers (p. 0012).
Claim 56 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 51.
Claim 57 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 52.
Claim 58 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 53.
Claim 59 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 54.
Claim 60 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 55.
Claim 61 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising: instructions that when executed by a control circuitry of a server associated with a plurality of content providers cause the input/output circuitry to” performing the steps of claim 51. Berry teaches “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising: instructions that when executed by a control circuitry of a server associated with a plurality of content providers cause the input/output circuitry to” performing the steps of claim 51 (p. 0015).
Claim 62 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising: instructions that when executed by a control circuitry of a server associated with a plurality of content providers cause the input/output circuitry to” performing the steps of claim 52. Berry teaches “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising: instructions that when executed by a control circuitry of a server associated with a plurality of content providers cause the input/output circuitry to” performing the steps of claim 52 (p. 0015).
Claim 63 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising: instructions that when executed by a control circuitry of a server associated with a plurality of content providers cause the input/output circuitry to” performing the steps of claim 53. Berry teaches “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising: instructions that when executed by a control circuitry of a server associated with a plurality of content providers cause the input/output circuitry to” performing the steps of claim 53 (p. 0015).
Claim 64 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising: instructions that when executed by a control circuitry of a server associated with a plurality of content providers cause the input/output circuitry to” performing the steps of claim 54. Berry teaches “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising: instructions that when executed by a control circuitry of a server associated with a plurality of content providers cause the input/output circuitry to” performing the steps of claim 54 (p. 0015).
Claim 65 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising: instructions that when executed by a control circuitry of a server associated with a plurality of content providers cause the input/output circuitry to” performing the steps of claim 65. Berry teaches “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising: instructions that when executed by a control circuitry of a server associated with a plurality of content providers cause the input/output circuitry to” performing the steps of claim 65 (p. 0015).
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry et al. (US 2014/0223480) in view of Carbunar et al. (US 2012/0304234), and further in view of Seely et al. (US 2020/0053428), and further in view of Korbecki et al. (US 2015/0169705).
Claim 55, Berry is not entirely clear in teaching the method of claim 54, further comprising:
storing, by the server, the metadata of the media asset in association with the user profile; and
adjusting the preference levels indicated by the user profile based on the metadata.
Korbecki teaches the method of claim 54, further comprising:
storing, by the server, the metadata of the media asset in association with the user profile (i.e. user profile data stored on media content source) (p. 0127-0128); and
adjusting the preference levels indicated by the user profile based on the metadata (i.e. server analyzes metadata and user profile to create recommendations) (p. 0127-0128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided a content aggregator as taught by Korbecki to the system of Berry to allow for multiple providers to provide content within a system (p. 0041).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 51-65 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Claims 51-65 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
. US 20180113579 A1 JOHNSTON; Alexander W. et al.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSHFIKH I ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1710. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00PM-9:00PM.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
MUSHFIKH I. ALAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2426
/MUSHFIKH I ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 3/4/2026