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 .
Claims 1-48 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the interpretation, absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Specifically, “user device” configured to send the request does not have sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Although the Specification describes examples of the structure of the “user device,” but such descriptions or structures are not evident from the claims by merely reciting “configured to send the request.” Therefore, Applicant is advised to amend the claims to positive recite devices with known structure, e.g. circuitry, to avoid invocation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant repeatedly argues that courts have not found “user device configured to” to invoke 112(f) interpretation, and provided list of known terms that are subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. However, the examiner disagrees.
According to MPEP 2181(I), examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation if it meets the following 3-prong analysis:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function (i.e. user device);
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (i.e. sending request is not sufficient structure, material or acts to modify the generic placeholder).
In this case, “device configured to” is generic placeholder with transition word subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, the term “user” and “sending request” are not sufficient structure or acts that would modify the generic placeholder to known structure. Although Applicant provided examples of user devices, but those examples are not to be imported into the claim. MPEP 2111.01 (II).
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues the references individually do not disclose the claimed limitations. However, the examiner has relied upon the combination of references to teach or at least suggest the claimed limitations. Specifically, Korbecki discloses media platform that allows content to be accessed via different media platforms (e.g. Hulu, Netflix, etc). Earle is relied upon for disclosure of “based on a user interaction with an interface element of a social media platform,” which allows user to share social media feed or content across platforms. Lastly, Lewis discloses ”a first user specific identifier associated with a message originator device, an user agnostic identifier, and a second user specific identifier associated with a message recipient device.” The references are combinable because they are analogous art involving content access and sharing across different media platforms, including social media platforms.
Applicant argues that Lewis’ attribution tag cannot be parsed into three separately function identifiers without first performing decryption and bitwise operations to reverse the obfuscation (p. 19 of Response filed on 7/8/26). However, the claim does not require the structure as argued by the Applicant. Furthermore, the claims merely require that the request comprises user agnostic identifier, a first user specific identifier associated with a message originator device, and a second user specific identifier associated with a message recipient device.” Those identifiers are examined based on broadest reasonable interpretation as being “associated” with the sender and recipient.
Applicant then argues that Earle discloses passive interaction on social media platform instead of “active-interaction architecture” (p. 20 of Response filed on 7/8/26). However, the claim is silent regarding the type of interaction as challenged by the Applicant, and Lewis teaches use of share button on social media platform.
Applicant also argues that the Lewis does not teach access rights based on second user specific identifier, and Korbecki’s access rights determination is based on single user’s own subscription profiles across different providers (p. 20 of Response filed on 7/8/26). However, the claim is silent regarding whether the profiles needs to be associated with single user or different users as user may send content to themselves in a different platform for various reasons.
Lastly, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: user device configured to send the request in claims 1, 15 and 35. Support can be found in the Specification ([0034]-[0035]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-20, 22-30, 32-38, 40-45, 47 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korbecki et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0169705 (hereinafter Korbecki) in view of Earle U.S. 2015/0058872 (hereinafter Earle) and further in view of Lewis et al. U.S. 9,866,628 (hereinafter Lewis).
Regarding claim 1 and 8, Korbecki discloses a system/non-transitory computer readable media comprising:
a computing device configured to:
receive, from a user device, based on user interaction with interface element of a content platform (Korbecki: Figs. 5 and 6A-6B; [0026]-[0028]: various platforms for implementing the media guidance application, including social media; [0078]: content provider include social networking websites, subscription services, etc. to suggest or recommend content to user), a request for content, wherein the request comprises a user agnostic identifier and a second user specific identifier (Korbecki: [0039]: user profiles from other sources are used to query for content; Figures 5 and 6A-6B: enter keyword to search for content across different platforms including Hulu, Netflix, etc. or click recommended content);
determine, based on the second user specific identifier, user information associated with the second user identifier and the request (Korbecki: Figures 6A-6B: different content providers are queried based on user’s subscription status; [0112]-[0114]: identifiers associated with user from other sources are provided to query content, e.g. user account associated with Hulu, Netflix, Youtube, etc.; [0028]: various types of user equipment devices may be used to implement the system to identify the user and account);
determine content associated with the user agnostic identifier (Korbecki: Figs. 5 and 6A-B: search content based on title);
determine, based on the user information, one or more access rights to the content (Korbecki: [0035]-[0039]: depends on subscription or access rights);
provide access to the content based on the one or more access rights (Korbecki: [0035]-[0039])
and a user device configured to send the request for content (Korbecki: Fig. 4: user devices).
Korbecki discloses that the user can request and access content via different platforms, including social networking websites (Korbecki: [0026]-[0028]: various platforms for implementing the media guidance application, including social media; [0078]: content provider include social networking websites, subscription services, etc. to suggest or recommend content to user). Korbecki does not expressly recite “based on a user interaction with an interface element of a social media platform.” However, Earle discloses the aggregating content from various platforms and controlling access to the content based on second user’s content access right, Earle discloses media aggregation system that allow user to access content shared via different media platforms based on user’s subscription and information retrieved from social media feeds (Earl: Fig. 3; [0008]: monitor social media feed; [0025]: aggregating and presenting content to user based on user’s subscription to various content providers). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recommend content from various platforms based on user’s interactions on other platforms because they are analogous art. The motivation to combine would be to allow content access using various types of devices from various content sources geared toward user’s interests or preferences.
Korbecki and Earle do not explicitly disclose the content request includes a first user specific identifier associated with a message originator device, an user agnostic identifier, and a second user specific identifier associated with a message recipient device. However, Lewis discloses content sharing system that allows user to share content via various platforms, including social media platform, wherein the request for content includes first user identifier associated with message originator, user agnostic information, and second user identifier associated with message recipient (Lewis: col. 4 line 47 – col. 5 line 28: generating shareable link to request content shared by referring user/first user, the request is in the form of attribution tag that contains referring user/first user identifier indicating message sender, referred content/user agnostic identifier, and referral/identifies recipient; col. 7 lines 16-26: a user can post the link or share with others across different platforms; col. 10 lines 38-47: attribution tag includes destination of the referral/identifier of the message recipient). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to request content via social media posts shared by message originator to a message recipient using the attribution tag in the system of Korbecki/Earle because Lewis and they all disclose sharing recommended content via different platforms including social media platforms (Korbecki: [0078]: content provider include social networking websites; [0030]: user can request access by selecting a selectable option or press a dedicated button; Earle: [0008]; [0025]). The motivation to combine would be to allow content to be tracked and distributed across heterogeneous platforms (Lewis: col. 1 lines 9-32).
As per claim 2 and 9, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 8 respectively. Korbecki further discloses wherein the request is initiated by a user interaction with an interface element of a social media platform (Korbecki: [0071]-[0072]: user device access content via social networking site; Lewis: col. 7 lines 16-26: a user can post the link or share with others across different platforms).
As per claim 3 and 10, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 8 respectively. Korbecki as modified further discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to send, to the message recipient, a message, wherein the message comprises a social media message, and wherein the message comprises an interface element (Korbecki: [0026]-[0028]: various platforms for implementing the media guidance application, including social media; [0078]: content provider include social networking websites, subscription services, etc. to suggest or recommend content to user; Earl: Fig. 3; [0008]: monitor social media feed; [0025]: aggregating and presenting content to user based on user’s subscription to various content providers; Lewis: col. 7 lines 16-26: a user can post the link or share with others across different platforms). Same rationale applies here as above in rejecting claim 1.
As per claim 4 and 11, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 8 respectively. Korbecki as modified further discloses wherein the first user specific identifier is indicative of a first service provider and wherein the second user specific identifier is indicative of a second service provider (Earl: Fig. 3; [0008]: monitor social media feed; [0025]: aggregating and presenting content to user based on user’s subscription to various content providers; Lewis: col. 4 line 47 – col. 5 line 28: generating shareable link to request content shared by referring user/first user, the request is in the form of attribution tag that contains referring user/first user identifier indicating message sender, referred content/user agnostic identifier, and referral/identifies recipient; col. 7 lines 16-26: a user can post the link or share with others across different platforms; col. 10 lines 38-47: attribution tag includes destination of the referral/identifier of the message recipient). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to share content across different platforms by one user to another user (e.g. first user recommends or share Youtube video on Facebook post of second user) because it allows content request from various platforms by different users.
As per claim 6 and 13, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 8 respectively. Korbecki as modified further discloses wherein the first user specific identifier identifies the message originator device and wherein the second specific identifier identifies the message recipient device (Lewis: col. 4 line 47 – col. 5 line 28: generating shareable link to request content shared by referring user/first user, the request is in the form of attribution tag that contains referring user/first user identifier indicating message sender, referred content/user agnostic identifier, and referral/identifies recipient; col. 7 lines 16-26: a user can post the link or share with others across different platforms; col. 10 lines 38-47: attribution tag includes destination of the referral/identifier of the message recipient). Same rationale applies here as above in rejecting claim 1.
As per claim 7 and 14, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 8 respectively. Korbecki as modified further discloses wherein the user information comprises one or more of: subscription information, a user credential, a name, or an account identifier (Korbecki: [0064]: use stored login information to query content; [0078]: subscription service; Earl: Fig. 3; [0008]: monitor social media feed; [0025]: aggregating and presenting content to user based on user’s subscription to various content providers).
As per claim 15 and 25, Korbecki discloses a system/non-transitory computer readable media comprising:
a computing device configured to:
receive a request for content, wherein the request comprises a user agnostic identifier, a first user specific identifier, and a second user specific identifier (Korbecki: [0039]: user profiles from other sources are used to query for content; figures 5 and 6A-6B: enter keyword to search for content across different platforms including Hulu, Netflix, etc.);
determine, based on the second user specific identifier, user information associated with the second user specific identifier (Korbecki: figures 6A-6B: different content providers are queried based on user’s subscription status; [0112]-[0114]: identifiers associated with user from other sources are provided to query content; [0028]: various types of user equipment devices may be used to implement the system to identify the user and account);
determine content associated with the user agnostic identifier (Carr: Fig. 3; col. 6 ll. 39-65: determine content to be shared; col. 6 ll. 13-50: determine content available to recipient);
determine, based on the user information associated with the second user specific identifier, one or more providers associated with the content (Korbecki: [0064]: retrieve and store login information to directly query content providers for content; figures 6A-6B);
cause, based on the one or more providers, access to the content to be provided to the second user device (Korbecki: figures 6A-6B; [0111]: indicate list of available sources to access contents based on user profile information); and
the first user device configured to send the request (Korbecki: Fig. 4: user devices).
Korbecki discloses that the user can request and access content via different platforms, including social networking websites (Korbecki: [0026]-[0028]: various platforms for implementing the media guidance application, including social media; [0078]: content provider include social networking websites, subscription services, etc. to suggest or recommend content to user). Korbecki does not expressly recite “based on a user interaction with an interface element of a social media platform.” However, Earle discloses the aggregating content from various platforms and controlling access to the content based on second user’s content access right, Earle discloses media aggregation system that allow user to access content shared via different media platforms based on user’s subscription and information retrieved from social media feeds (Earl: Fig. 3; [0008]: monitor social media feed; [0025]: aggregating and presenting content to user based on user’s subscription to various content providers). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recommend content from various platforms based on user’s interactions on other platforms because they are analogous art. The motivation to combine would be to allow content access using various types of devices from various content sources gear toward user’s interests or preferences.
Korbecki and Earle do not explicitly disclose the content request includes a first user specific identifier associated with a message originator device, an user agnostic identifier, and a second user specific identifier associated with a message recipient device. However, Lewis discloses content sharing system that allows user to share content via various platforms, including social media platform, wherein the request for content includes first user identifier associated with message originator, user agnostic information, and second user identifier associated with message recipient (Lewis: col. 4 line 47 – col. 5 line 28: generating shareable link to request content shared by referring user/first user, the request is in the form of attribution tag that contains referring user/first user identifier indicating message sender, referred content/user agnostic identifier, and referral/identifies recipient; col. 7 lines 16-26: a user can post the link or share with others across different platforms; col. 10 lines 38-47: attribution tag includes destination of the referral/identifier of the message recipient). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to request content via social media posts shared by message originator to a message recipient using the attribution tag in the system of Korbecki/Earle because Lewis and they all disclose sharing recommended content via different platforms including social media platforms (Korbecki: [0078]: content provider include social networking websites; [0030]: user can request access by selecting a selectable option or press a dedicated button; Earle: [0008]; [0025]). The motivation to combine would be to allow content to be tracked and distributed across heterogeneous platforms (Lewis: col. 1 lines 9-32).
As per claim 16 and 26, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 15 and 25 respectively. Korbecki further discloses wherein the user information associated with the second user specific identifier is indicative of a service provider (Korbecki: figures 5 and 6A-6B: enter keyword to search for content across different platforms including Hulu, Netflix, etc.; Earl: Fig. 3; [0008]: monitor social media feed; [0025]: aggregating and presenting content to user based on user’s subscription to various content providers).
As per claim 17 and 27, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 15 and 25 respectively, wherein the interface element is configured to send the user agnostic identifier, the first user specific identifier, and the second specific identifier in a single request (Lewis: col. 4 line 47 – col. 5 line 28: generating shareable link to request content shared by referring user/first user, the request is in the form of attribution tag that contains referring user/first user identifier indicating message sender, referred content/user agnostic identifier, and referral/identifies recipient; col. 7 lines 16-26: a user can post the link or share with others across different platforms; col. 10 lines 38-47: attribution tag includes destination of the referral/identifier of the message recipient). Same rationale applies here as above in rejecting claim 15.
As per claim 18 and 28, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 15 and 25 respectively. Korbecki further discloses wherein the user agnostic identifier is stored as an attribute of the interface element (Korbecki: [0080]).
As per claim 19 and 29, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claim 15 and 25 respectively. Korbecki does not explicitly disclose wherein the computing device is configured to provide the one or more options by sending a message and wherein the message comprises a social media message, and wherein the interface element comprises a button inserted into the social media message (Lewis: col. 9 lines 30-39: share button). Use of buttons for sharing or requesting content is well known in the art.
As per claim 20 and 30, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 15 and 25 respectively. Korbecki as modified further discloses wherein the first user specific identifier is indicative of a first service provider and wherein the second user specific identifier is indicative of a second service provider (Earl: Fig. 3; [0008]: monitor social media feed; [0025]: aggregating and presenting content to user based on user’s subscription to various content providers; Lewis: col. 4 line 47 – col. 5 line 28: generating shareable link to request content shared by referring user/first user, the request is in the form of attribution tag that contains referring user/first user identifier indicating message sender, referred content/user agnostic identifier, and referral/identifies recipient; col. 7 lines 16-26: a user can post the link or share with others across different platforms; col. 10 lines 38-47: attribution tag includes destination of the referral/identifier of the message recipient). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to share content across different platforms by one user to another user (e.g. first user recommends or share Youtube video on Facebook post of second user) because it allows content request from various platforms by different users.
As per claim 22 and 32, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 15 and 25 respectively. Korbecki as modified further discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to determine the content associated with the user agnostic identifier is available during a time span indicated by time information (Korbecki: [0029]: content metadata, including broadcast time; [0031] and [0035]).
As per claim 23 and 33, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 15 and 25 respectively. Korbecki as modified further discloses wherein the first user specific identifier is associated with a message originator and wherein the second user specific identifier is associated with a message recipient (Lewis: col. 4 line 47 – col. 5 line 28: generating shareable link to request content shared by referring user/first user, the request is in the form of attribution tag that contains referring user/first user identifier indicating message sender, referred content/user agnostic identifier, and referral/identifies recipient; col. 7 lines 16-26: a user can post the link or share with others across different platforms; col. 10 lines 38-47: attribution tag includes destination of the referral/identifier of the message recipient). Same rationale applies here as above in rejecting claim 15.
As per claim 24 and 34, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 15 and 25 respectively. Korbecki as modified further discloses wherein the user information comprises one or more of: subscription information, a user credential, a name, or an account identifier (Korbecki: [0064]: use stored login information to query content; [0078]: subscription service; (Earl: Fig. 3; [0008]: monitor social media feed; [0025]: aggregating and presenting content to user based on user’s subscription to various content providers).
As per claim 35 and 42, Korbecki discloses a system/non-transitory computer readable media comprising:
a computing device configured to:
receive, from a user device, a request for content, wherein the request comprises a user agnostic identifier and a second user specific identifier (Korbecki: [0039]: user profiles from other sources are used to query for content; figures 5 and 6A-6B: enter keyword to search for content across different platforms including Hulu, Netflix, etc.);
determine, based on the second user specific identifier, user information associated with the request (Korbecki: figures 6A-6B: different content providers are queried based on user’s subscription status; [0112]-[0114]: identifiers associated with user from other sources are provided to query content; [0028]: various types of user equipment devices may be used to implement the system to identify the user and account);
query a plurality of computing devices for content associated with the user agnostic identifier (Korbecki: figures 5 and 6A-6B: retrieve content associated with the key word; [0080]: user enters search terms/user agnostic identifiers to find related contents);
receive, from at least one device computing device of the plurality of computing devices, one or more options for accessing the content (Korbecki: [0064]: retrieve and store login information to directly query a content provider for content; figures 6A-6B);
send the one or more options to the user device (Korbecki: figures 6A-6B; [0111]: indicate list of available sources to access contents based on user profile information); and
the user device configured to send the request (Korbecki: Fig. 4: user devices).
Korbecki discloses that the user can request and access content via different platforms, including social networking websites (Korbecki: [0026]-[0028]: various platforms for implementing the media guidance application, including social media; [0078]: content provider include social networking websites, subscription services, etc. to suggest or recommend content to user). Korbecki does not expressly recite “based on a user interaction with an interface element of a social media platform.” However, Earle discloses the aggregating content from various platforms and controlling access to the content based on second user’s content access right, Earle discloses media aggregation system that allow user to access content shared via different media platforms based on user’s subscription and information retrieved from social media feeds (Earl: Fig. 3; [0008]: monitor social media feed; [0025]: aggregating and presenting content to user based on user’s subscription to various content providers). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recommend content from various platforms based on user’s interactions on other platforms because they are analogous art. The motivation to combine would be to allow content access using various types of devices from various content sources gear toward user’s interests or preferences.
Korbecki and Earle do not explicitly disclose the content request includes a first user specific identifier associated with a message originator device, an user agnostic identifier, and a second user specific identifier associated with a message recipient device. However, Lewis discloses content sharing system that allows user to share content via various platforms, including social media platform, wherein the request for content includes first user identifier associated with message originator, user agnostic information, and second user identifier associated with message recipient (Lewis: col. 4 line 47 – col. 5 line 28: generating shareable link to request content shared by referring user/first user, the request is in the form of attribution tag that contains referring user/first user identifier indicating message sender, referred content/user agnostic identifier, and referral/identifies recipient; col. 7 lines 16-26: a user can post the link or share with others across different platforms; col. 10 lines 38-47: attribution tag includes destination of the referral/identifier of the message recipient). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to request content via social media posts shared by message originator to a message recipient using the attribution tag in the system of Korbecki/Earle because Lewis and they all disclose sharing recommended content via different platforms including social media platforms (Korbecki: [0078]: content provider include social networking websites; [0030]: user can request access by selecting a selectable option or press a dedicated button; Earle: [0008]; [0025]). The motivation to combine would be to allow content to be tracked and distributed across heterogeneous platforms (Lewis: col. 1 lines 9-32).
As per claim 36 and 43, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 35 and 42 respectively. Korbecki as modified further discloses wherein the interface element is configured to send the user agnostic identifier, the first user specific identifier, and the second specific identifier in a single request (Lewis: col. 4 line 47 – col. 5 line 28: generating shareable link to request content shared by referring user/first user, the request is in the form of attribution tag that contains referring user/first user identifier indicating message sender, referred content/user agnostic identifier, and referral/identifies recipient; col. 7 lines 16-26: a user can post the link or share with others across different platforms; col. 10 lines 38-47: attribution tag includes destination of the referral/identifier of the message recipient). Same rationale applies here as above in rejecting claim 35.
As per claim 37 and 44, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 36 and 43 respectively. Korbecki further disclose wherein the computing device is configured to send the one or more options and wherein the message comprises a social media message, and wherein the request is received based on a message, and wherein the interface element comprises a button inserted into the social media message (Korbecki: [0078]: content provider include social networking websites; [0030]: user can request access by selecting a selectable option or press a dedicated button; Earle: [0008]; [0025]; Lewis: col. 9 lines 30-39: share button). Use of buttons for sharing or requesting content is well known in the art.
As per claim 38 and 45, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 35 and 42 respectively. Korbecki further discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to determine, based on the user information, one or more access rights associated with the user information (Korbecki: [0064]; [0112]-[0114]).
As per claim 40 and 47, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 35 and 42 respectively. Korbecki as modified further discloses wherein the first user specific identifier identifies the message originator and wherein the second specific identifier identifies the message recipient (Carr: col. 5 ll. 24-50: identify source social network and recipient social networks to allow sharing of content across different social networks). Same rationale applies here as above in rejecting claim 35.
As per claim 41 and 48, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 35 and 42 respectively. Korbecki as modified further discloses wherein the user information comprises one or more of: subscription information, a user credential, a name, or an account identifier (Korbecki: [0064]: the recommendation module is able to retrieve and store login information or other user-specific information associated with content providers to determine whether access to content is allowed).
Claims 5, 12, 21, 31, 39 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korbecki in view of Earle and further in view of Lewis and further in view of Doyle et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0025977 (hereinafter Doyle).
As per claim 5 and 12, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 8 respectively. Korbecki as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the computing device is further configured to update, based on the first user specific identifier and the second user specific identifier, a tracking database, wherein the tracking database is configured to provide statistical information regarding content. However, Doyle discloses user interactions on social media platform with respect to shared content to determine usage and provide statistical information (Doyle: [0064]-[0066]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to keep track of content usage by users accessing content through social media platform because Korbecki and Doyle both disclose providing content access through various cloud services, including social networking sites. The motivation to combine would be to determine user interest and effectiveness of advertising campaigns.
As per claim 21 and 31, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 15 and 25 respectively. Korbecki as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the computing device is further configured to update, based on the first user specific identifier and the second user specific identifier, a tracking database, wherein the tracking database is configured to provide statistical information regarding content. However, Doyle discloses user interactions on social media platform with respect to shared content to determine usage and provide statistical information (Doyle: [0064]-[0066]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to keep track of content usage by users accessing content through social media platform because Korbecki and Doyle both disclose providing content access through various cloud services, including social networking sites. The motivation to combine would be to determine user interest and effectiveness of advertising campaigns.
As per claim 39 and 46, Korbecki as modified discloses the limitations of claims 35 and 42 respectively. Korbecki as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the computing device is further configured to update, based on the first user specific identifier and the second user specific identifier, a tracking database, wherein the tracking database is configured to provide statistical information regarding content. However, Doyle discloses user interactions on social media platform with respect to shared content to determine usage and provide statistical information (Doyle: [0064]-[0066]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to keep track of content usage by users accessing content through social media platform because Korbecki and Doyle both disclose providing content access through various cloud services, including social networking sites. The motivation to combine would be to determine user interest and effectiveness of advertising campaigns.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wong et al. U.S. 2013/0305287 discloses method for generating a user profile based customized media guide that include media source.
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 SHIN HON (ERIC) CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9am- 7pm.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. 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.
/SHIN-HON (ERIC) CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights