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 .
The following action is in response to the amendment and remarks of 06/27/2025.
By the amendment, claims 1, 4, 8-12 and 14-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant remarks (Remarks 06/27/2025 page 10) that the specification has been amended to overcome the specification amendment (Non-Final Rejection 03/27/2025). The corresponding objection is withdrawn.
Applicant remarks (Remarks 06/27/2025 page 11) that a terminal disclaimer has been filed to overcome the double patenting rejections (Non-Final Rejection 03/27/2025) of claims 1-4, 8-11 and 15-18 over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,560,159. The terminal disclaimer was approved and the corresponding rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues (Remarks 06/27/2025 pages 11-12), regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 1-4, 8-11 and 15-18 by GHARACHORLOO, that independent claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended to overcome the anticipatory rejection. The Examiner agrees. Particularly, that GHARACHORLOO fails to explicitly disclose selection of a particular hyperlink as now required by claims 1, 8 and 15. Accordingly, the corresponding 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 1-4, 8-11 and 15-18 are withdrawn. Similarly, the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 5-7, 12-14 and 19-20 over GHARACHORLOO in view of MATHUR are withdrawn as MATHUR fails to cure the deficiency of GHARACHORLOO cited regarding independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
However, on further search and consideration, the prior art of TOIVONEN (US 2004/0122848 A1) was found to combine to teach the deficiencies of GHARACHORLOO as applied in the new ground of rejection below.
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.
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.
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 1-4, 8-11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GHARACHORLOO et al., US 2013/0086159 A1 (“GHARACHORLOO”) in view of Toivonen et al., US 2004/0122848 A1 (“TOIVONEN”).
Regarding claim 1, GHARACHORLOO discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, at a media presentation platform that includes a recommendation system, an indication that a user of a user device selected a particular link provided to the user device by a referral source (¶33-37: first user selection of media content link within device UI from recommendation server), wherein the referral source is different from the media presentation platform and the recommendation system (¶13-20: recommendation server and content server are distinct); and
by the recommendation system included in the media presentation platform, and in response to receiving the indication that the user of the user device selected the particular link provided to the user device by the referral source (¶38):
identifying one or more other media items hosted by the media presentation platform that are associated with the referral source (¶33-37), wherein the identifying includes determining that the referral source includes one or more additional links that each correspond to a respective media item of the one or more other media items that are hosted by the media presentation platform (¶19, ¶47, ¶50-52: other users media item selection on the recommendation server from other users selection of media content links at devices associated with the recommendation server); and
causing one or more recommendations to be presented to the user via a user interface of the user device, wherein the one or more recommendations each include at least one of the one or more other media items (¶19, ¶38, ¶53).
GHARACHORLOO fails to explicitly disclose wherein the selected particular link is a hyperlink.
TOIVONEN discloses methods for processing and displaying links of associated content (¶). In particular, TOIVONEN discloses that addressable content may be addressed through selection of a recommendation link, an Internet hyperlink, a search result link or the like (¶32). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of GHARACHORLOO and TOIVONEN before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to simply substitute, using the known method of TOIVONEN of using a hyperlink in a similar fashion to a content link, the selected content link of GHARACHORLOO with a hyperlink. This would predictably result in the selection of a hyperlink. One would have been motivated to make this substitution in order to utilize known methods for linking, as suggested by TOIVONEN (¶32) and KSR rationale (see MPEP 2141(III)).
Regarding claim 2, GHARACHORLOO and TOIVONEN disclose the method of claim 1, and GHARACHORLOO further discloses wherein identifying at least one of the one or more other media items hosted by the media presentation platform that are associated with the referral source includes identifying the at least one of the one or more other media items based on:
a viewing history of a user account of the user on the media presentation platform (¶16-17, ¶19: viewing history of each user), and
an association between the viewing history of the user account and the at least one of the one or more other media items (¶19).
Regarding claim 3, GHARACHORLOO and TOIVONEN disclose the method of claim 2, and GHARACHORLOO further discloses compiling, by the media presentation platform, the viewing history of the user account based on previously viewed media content items associated with the user (¶16-17, ¶19).
Regarding claim 4, GHARACHORLOO and TOIVONEN disclose the method of claim 1, and GHARACHORLOO further discloses wherein identifying the one or more other media items hosted by the media presentation platform that are associated with the referral source further includes:
compiling a list of media items hosted by the media presentation platform that have respective links at the referral source (¶39),
filtering the list based on selections by other users of the media presentation platform of the hyperlinks at the referral source (¶39, ¶50-52), and
selecting the one or more additional hyperlinks based on the filtered list (¶39).
Regarding claims 8-11, claims 8-11 recite limitations similar to claims 1-4, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 15-18, claims 15-18 recite limitations similar to claims 1-4, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
Claims 5-7, 12-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GHARACHORLOO in view of TOIVONEN and in further view of MATHUR, US 8,489,515 B2 (“MATHUR”).
Regarding claim 5, GHARACHORLOO and TOIVONEN disclose the method of claim 1, and GHARACHORLOO further discloses wherein causing the one or more recommendations to be presented to the user via the user interface of the user device includes:
determining a likelihood of user interest in each of the one or more other media items (¶19, ¶30-31); and
causing the one or more recommendations to be presented to the user in based on the likelihoods (¶42).
GHARACHORLOO and TOIVONEN fail to disclose causing the one or more recommendations to be presented to the user in a particular order based on the respective likelihoods.
MATHUR discloses methods for recommending content to a user based on previous and current content item selections (col 1 lines 35-44). In particular, MATHUR discloses causing recommendations to be presented to the user in a particular order based on a respective likelihood of user interest (col 7 lines 20-34). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of GHARACHORLOO, TOIVONEN and MATHUR before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine presentation of media content recommendation to be ordered based on a respective likelihood of user interest, as suggested by MATHUR, with the presentation of the media content recommendation based on likelihood of user interest of GHARACHORLOO and TOIVONEN. One would have been motivated to make this combination in order to present the most relevant content items to the user first when the recommended content items are too numerous to be displayed in a reasonable manner, as suggested by MATHUR (col 7 lines 20-24).
Regarding claim 6, GHARACHORLOO, TOIVONEN and MATHUR disclose the method of claim 5, and GHARACHORLOO further discloses wherein the user interest is determined based on a previous viewing history of a user account of the media presentation platform that is associated with the user (¶19).
Regarding claim 7, GHARACHORLOO and TOIVONEN disclose the method of claim 1and GHARACHORLOO further discloses:
receiving, by the media presentation platform, an indication of user selection of the one or more recommendations presented via the user interface (¶46), and
causing, by the media presentation platform, the one or more other media items to be presented to the user via the user interface based on determining user account data of the user on the media presentation platform (¶42).
GHARACHORLOO and TOIVONEN fail to disclose the presentation of the one or other media items in a particular order.
MATHUR discloses methods for recommending content to a user based on previous and current content item selections (col 1 lines 35-44). In particular, MATHUR discloses causing recommendations to be presented to the user in a particular order based on user relevancy (col 7 lines 20-34). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the teachings of GHARACHORLOO, TOIVONEN and MATHUR before them before the effective filing of the claimed invention to combine presentation of media content recommendation to be ordered based on user relevancy, as suggested by MATHUR, with presentation of the one or more other media items based on determined user account data of GHARACHORLOO and TOIVONEN. One would have been motivated to make this combination in order to present the most relevant content items to the user first when the recommended content items are too numerous to be displayed in a reasonable manner, as suggested by MATHUR (col 7 lines 20-24).
Regarding claim 12-14, claims 12-14 recite limitations similar to claims 5-7, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, claims 19 and 20 recite limitations similar to claims 5 and 7, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MORITZ et al.
US 20130332962 A1
MEDIA RECOMMENDATIONS RESPONSIVE TO PREFERENCES FOR AN ELECTRONIC TERMINAL
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW L TANK whose telephone number is (571)270-1692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9a-6p.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/ANDREW L TANK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2141