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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended the claims to recite “determining a recommendation action based on a number of recommendations for the media device configuration option among the plurality of users in the generated user group and comparing said number to a predetermined threshold”. Shivaji-Rao discloses in Paragraphs 0041-0042 determining a picture or audio optimization option (recommendation action), based on the viewing preference previously recorded for other users with equivalent channel access and socioeconomic standing (see Paragraph 0040), wherein since the recommendation action is determined based on recommendations from a plurality of users for a particular media device configuration option (video or audio setting), the recommendation action is based on a number of recommendations the media device configuration option among the plurality of users in the generated user group (note the user group are the users that have equivalent channel access and socioeconomic standing). The question then becomes, is this number compared to a predetermined threshold. Shivaji-Rao discloses in Paragraph 0050 that a “most preferred” setting is determined based on the accumulated experience of other users, wherein this represents a sort of collective wisdom or vote as to the particular settings that best optimize a program of the given viewing category. Paragraph 0050 further teaches filtering out of the list of settings most preferred by suspect categories of other users, such as indecisive users who switch between channels frequently or advanced users who do not share the preference of and thus don’t well represent most other users. Therefore, different types of thresholds can be implemented that work in conjunction with one another, wherein the number of recommendations are compared to a threshold of the highest possible match/most preferred settings and then can be further enhanced by another threshold that allows filtering out the settings. Therefore, Shivaji-Rao discloses the amended claim limitations. The rejection has been updated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 27-28, 32-33, 36-38, 42-43 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shivaji-Rao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0245373).
Referring to claim 27, Shivaji-Rao discloses generating a user group having a plurality of users that share a common characteristic (see Paragraph 0040 for grouping users together that have common characteristics).
Shivaji-Rao discloses identifying a media device configuration option recommended on an online platform by the plurality of users in the generated user group, wherein the media device configuration option relates to configuring a media device with the recommended media device configuration option recommended by the plurality of users for consuming a media asset (see Paragraph 0041 for identifying setup settings, picture settings and audio settings based on the remote site grouping users together in Paragraph 0040 and further note the Examiner’s rebuttal above).
Shivaji-Rao also discloses determining a recommendation action based on a number of recommendations for the media device configuration option among the plurality of users in the generated user group and comparing said number to a predetermined threshold (see Paragraphs 0041-0042 determining a picture or audio optimization option (recommendation action), based on the viewing preference previously recorded for other users with equivalent channel access and socioeconomic standing (see Paragraph 0040), wherein since the recommendation action is determined based on recommendations from a plurality of users for a particular media device configuration option (video or audio setting), the recommendation action is based on a number of recommendations the media device configuration option among the plurality of users in the generated user group (note the user group are the users that have equivalent channel access and socioeconomic standing). The question then becomes, is this number compared to a predetermined threshold. Shivaji-Rao discloses in Paragraph 0050 that a “most preferred” setting is determined based on the accumulated experience of other users, wherein this represents a collective wisdom or vote as to the particular settings that best optimizes a program of the given viewing category. Paragraph 0050 further teaches filtering out of the list of settings most preferred by suspect categories of other users, such as indecisive users who switch between channels frequently or advanced users who do not share the preference of and thus don’t well represent most other users. Therefore, different types of thresholds can be implemented that work in conjunction with one another, wherein the number of recommendations are compared to a threshold of the highest possible match/most preferred settings and then can be further enhanced by another threshold that allows filtering out the settings).
Shivaji-Rao also discloses determining whether the media device configuration option recommended by the plurality of users in the generated user group relates to a first media asset currently being consumed by a current user (see Paragraph 0042 for determining control signals and transmitting the control signals to the interface module 80, wherein the control signals used by the automatic adjustment process involves the channel map and further note Paragraphs 0040 and 0063 in conjunction with the Examiner’s rebuttal above).
Shivaji-Rao also discloses configuring the media device to generate for display the first media asset with the media device configuration option based on determining that the media device configuration option recommended by the plurality of users relates to the first media asset being consumed by the current user (see Paragraphs 0044-0061 for various examples of configuring the television sets of the user using preferred user settings, wherein Paragraph 0050 indicates that the preferred settings are determined and executed based on broadcast settings identified based on the accumulated experience of other users).
Referring to claim 28, Shivaji-Rao discloses that the common characteristic includes user interest (see the bottom of Paragraph 0032).
Referring to claim 32, Shivaji-Rao discloses that the configuring of the media device to generate for display the first media asset with the media device configuration option is performed automatically (see Paragraph 0029).
Referring to claim 33, Shivaji-Rao discloses that the configuring of the media device to generate for display the first media asset with the media device configuration option is performed upon receiving user approval for performing the configuration of the media device (see Paragraph 0043).
Referring to claim 36, Shivaji-Rao discloses that the media device configuration option is associated with changing brightness (see Paragraph 0041).
Referring to claims 37-38, 42-43 and 46, see the rejection of claims 27-28, 32-33 and 36, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-31, 34-35, 39-41 and 44-45 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 JASON P SALCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7301. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am-10:00pm M-F (Flex Schedule).
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/Jason Salce/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Jason P Salce
Senior Examiner
Art Unit 2421
October 23, 2025