DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14 JANUARY 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s current amendment (dated 14 JANUARY 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-27 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference(s) and/or citations being used in the current rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-21, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zirnheld, US 2018/0350404 in view of Ham, US 2009/0123124 and further in view of Giladi et al., US 2021/0195279.
Regarding claim 1, Zirnheld discloses a method comprising:
determining, by a computing device (with at least computing-based device; Fig 5, element 500, and page 5, paragraph 64), a quantity of modification requests for an aggregated content satisfies a threshold (based on determination in relation to a number of edit/modification entries, i.e. requests; page 4, paragraph 56), wherein the aggregated content comprises a plurality of user-specific content segments (content comprises multiple different portions; page 3, paragraph 42, and wherein considered user-specific in that the content is requested by the user; page 1, paragraph 20);
generating a new aggregated content comprising a subset of the plurality of the user-specific content segments (aggregation of the specific content that is to be kept into new video; page 2, paragraph 22, and page 5, paragraph 59), wherein each of the subset of the plurality of user-specific content segments are not identified for removal in the quantity of modification requests (only content identified to be kept is used, i.e. no content identified to be removed/skipped is kept; page 2, paragraph 22, and page 5, paragraph 59); and
causing to be stored the new aggregated content in storage (resulting new video is then stored; page 5, paragraph 59).
While Zirnheld discloses the user-specific content segments (content comprises multiple different portions; page 3, paragraph 42, and wherein considered user-specific in that the content is requested by the user; page 1, paragraph 20), Zirnheld does not explicitly disclose deletion requests;
content corresponding to content for a plurality of user profiles;
content segments, wherein each content segment of a plurality of content segments corresponds to a user profile of the plurality of user profiles, and one or more header segments, wherein each header segment of the one or more header segments corresponds to at least one of the plurality of content segments;
a subset of the plurality of the content segments and at least one of the one or more header segments; and
identified for deletion.
In a related art, Ham does disclose deletion requests (editing instructions, i.e. requests, received from user; page 2, paragraph 36, and page 4, paragraph 69, and wherein this includes deletion; page 2, paragraph 31);
content segments and one or more header segments, wherein each header segment of the one or more header segments corresponding to at least one of the plurality of content segments (multiple data units; page 2, paragraphs 39-40, and headers/tails each corresponding to the specific data units; page 2, paragraph 40);
a subset of the plurality of the content segments and at least one of the one or more header segments (deleted portion(s), such that a subset of the remaining data units are stored with at least one corresponding header/tail; page 3, paragraph 48); and
identified for deletion (editing instructions for specific portion(s)/unit(s), i.e. identification; page 2, paragraph 42, and again including deletion; page 2, paragraph 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Zirnheld and Ham by allowing specific deletion operations to be performed in relation to stored content, in order to provide an improved system and method for editing digital moving picture files without using a space of a hard disk in a set-top box (Ham; page 1, paragraph 9).
Zirnheld in view of Ham does not explicitly disclose content corresponding to content for a plurality of user profiles; and
content segments, wherein each content segment of a plurality of content segments corresponds to a user profile of the plurality of user profiles.
In a related art, Giladi does disclose content corresponding to content for a plurality of user profiles (specific content can be associated with a user account, i.e. profile, and wherein of plurality of user accounts; page 4, paragraph 51, and wherein specific portion can be associated with and stored in user specific storage, i.e. associated with at least the first user account/profile, and other portions can be associated with and stored in common storage, i.e. associated with plurality of user accounts/profiles; page 5, paragraph 61, and with common portions accessible and associated with a plurality of user accounts/profiles, and user-specific portions associated and limited to a specific user account/profile; page 2, paragraph 27);
content segments, wherein each content segment of a plurality of content segments corresponds to a user profile of the plurality of user profiles (specific content can be associated with a user account, i.e. profile, and wherein of plurality of user accounts; page 4, paragraph 51, and wherein specific portion can be associated with and stored in user specific storage, i.e. associated with at least the first user account/profile, and other portions can be associated with and stored in common storage, i.e. associated with plurality of user accounts/profiles; page 5, paragraph 61, and with common portions accessible and associated with a plurality of user accounts/profiles, and user-specific portions associated and limited to a specific user account/profile; page 2, paragraph 27); and
one or more header segments, wherein each header segment of the one or more header segments corresponding to at least one of the plurality of content segments (header data associated with specific content/portions; page 5, paragraphs 56 and 59, and page 6, paragraph 65, and page 8, paragraph 81, and with header data associated with specific accounts/profiles in that it is stored in at least user-specific storage and/or common storage; page 5, paragraph 59, and page 14, paragraph 138).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Zirnheld, Ham, and Giladi by allowing user segments/portions to be associated with users via at least an account/user profile, in order to provide an improved system and method for more sophisticated techniques of content storage and access by different users (Giladi; page 1, paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Zirnheld in view of Ham and Giladi discloses retrieving, by the computing device, information indicative of the quantity of deletion requests received for the aggregated content (Zirnheld; based on determination in relation to a number of received edit/modification entries, i.e. requests that the system determines, i.e. retrieves; page 4, paragraph 56, and Ham; editing instructions, i.e. requests, received from user; page 2, paragraph 36, and page 4, paragraph 69, and wherein this includes deletion; page 2, paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 3, Zirnheld in view of Ham and Giladi discloses receiving, by the computing device, information indicative of a deletion request (Zirnheld; edit input received from user; page 4, paragraph 55, and Ham; editing instructions, i.e. requests, received from user; page 2, paragraph 36, and page 4, paragraph 69, and wherein this includes deletion; page 2, paragraph 31) received by a content recording system associated with the computing device (Zirnheld; from input via user device associated with computing device; page 6, paragraph 66 including input display device such as smart phone, which can record content; page 2, paragraph 28, and Ham; user device(s) can include PVRs/STBs with storage; page 1, paragraph 6, and page 4, paragraph 69), wherein the retrieving the information indicative of the quantity of deletion requests is based on the receiving (Zirnheld; based on determination in relation to a number of received edit/modification entries, i.e. requests that the system determines, i.e. retrieves; page 4, paragraph 56, and Ham; editing instructions, i.e. requests, received from user; page 2, paragraph 36, and page 4, paragraph 69, and wherein this includes deletion; page 2, paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 5, Zirnheld in view of Ham and Giladi discloses the threshold comprises a fraction of a total number of the plurality of user-specific content segments (Zirnheld; based on a threshold number of entries, i.e. requests, editing of the content can be performed, thereby indicating that the threshold is not equal to the entire number of segments, but rather only a portion, i.e. a fraction, since not everything is edited/skipped; page 4, paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 6, Zirnheld in view of Ham and Giladi discloses causing to be stored the new aggregated content in storage comprises replacing the aggregated content with the new aggregated content (Zirnheld; new video, i.e. replacement from the original; page 5, paragraph 59, and page 7, paragraph 92).
Regarding claim 7, Zirnheld in view of Ham and Giladi discloses the deletion requests are received from one or more user devices (Zirnheld; from input via user device associated with computing device; page 6, paragraph 66, and Ham; user device(s) can include PVRs/STBs with storage; page 1, paragraph 6, and page 4, paragraph 69).
Regarding claim 8, Zirnheld in view of Ham and Giladi discloses the one or more header segments comprise system level data objects for generating the plurality of user-specific content segments (Ham; headers/tails including at least system pointer data for generating/allowing the data units for use/playback; page 2, paragraph 40, and page 3, paragraph 48).
Regarding claim 9, Zirnheld in view of Ham and Giladi discloses determining a subset of the one or more header segments correspond to user-specific content segments associated with the a quantity of deletion requests and deleting the subset of the one or more header segments from the new aggregated content (Ham; based on requests, system can determine portions, i.e. subset, to delete, and wherein the portions have corresponding headers/tails which will then also be deleted; page 2, paragraph 40, and page 3, paragraph 48, and Zirnheld; aggregation of the specific content that is to be kept into new video; page 2, paragraph 22, and page 5, paragraph 59, and Giladi; header data associated with specific content/portions; page 5, paragraphs 56 and 59, and page 6, paragraph 65, and page 8, paragraph 81, and with header data associated with specific accounts/profiles in that it is stored in at least user-specific storage and/or common storage; page 5, paragraph 59page 14, paragraph 138).
Claim 10, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
one or more processors (Zirnheld; including at least a processor; page 5, paragraph 64), memory (Zirnheld; including memory; page 5, paragraph 65), and computer-executable instructions stored in the memory (Zirnheld; with executable instructions stored in memory/medium; page 5, paragraph 65).
Claim 11, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2.
Claim 12, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claim 14, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claim 15, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 6.
Claim 16, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 7.
Claim 17, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 8.
Claim 18, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 9.
Claim 19, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Zirnheld; medium can include non-transitory style mediums and non-transmission mediums; pages 5-6, paragraph 65).
Claim 20, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2.
Claim 21, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claim 23, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claim 24, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 6.
Claim 25, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 7.
Claim 26, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 8.
Claim 27, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 9.
Claims 4, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zirnheld, US 2018/0350404 in view of Ham, US 2009/0123124 and Giladi et al., US 2021/0195279 and further in view of Cheung et al., US 2012/0159098.
Regarding claim 4, Zirnheld in view of Ham and Giladi discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 2, as well as the information indicative of the quantity of deletion requests comprises information corresponding to a quantity of deletion requests (Zirnheld; corresponding to a number of entries, i.e. a quantity in relation to a threshold; page 4, paragraph 56, and Ham; editing instructions, i.e. requests, received from user; page 2, paragraph 36, and page 4, paragraph 69, and wherein this includes deletion; page 2, paragraph 31), and each of the plurality of user-specific content segments (Zirnheld; multiple different portions; page 3, paragraph 42, and wherein considered user-specific in that the content is requested by the user; page 1, paragraph 20, and Ham; multiple data units; page 2, paragraphs 39-40, and Giladi; specific content can be associated with a user account, i.e. profile, and wherein of plurality of user accounts; page 4, paragraph 51, and wherein specific portion can be associated with and stored in user specific storage, i.e. associated with at least the first user account/profile, and other portions can be associated with and stored in common storage, i.e. associated with plurality of user accounts/profiles; page 5, paragraph 61, and with common portions accessible and associated with a plurality of user accounts/profiles, and user-specific portions associated and limited to a specific user account/profile; page 2, paragraph 27).
Zirnheld in view of Ham and Giladi does not explicitly disclose metadata corresponding to deletion requests received for segments.
In a related art, Cheung does disclose metadata corresponding to deletion requests received for segments (deletion indication(s) for data are included in metadata; page 12, paragraph 125).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Zirnheld, Ham, Giladi, and Cheung by allowing metadata to include deletion requests/indications, in order to provide an improved system and method for collecting unused data in storage and for storing redundant copies of frequently used data (Cheung; page 1, paragraph 6).
Claim 13, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Claim 22, which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm 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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424