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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/31/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejections
Step 2A:
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Applicant's last response took the position that the instant specification identifies a technical problem (overlapping content from providers), a solution (generating and transmitting provider recommendation information (which includes suitability for use information) to a user, based on received information from such user), and as such, the solution is reflected in the claims. Accordingly, claim 1 as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception, and thus, the claims are directed to eligible subject matter in accordance with MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1)”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that limitations “generate content provider use information about each of at least one content provider based on the content preference information received”, “generate suitability for use information for each of the at least one content provider, based on the content provider use information about each of the at least one content provider” in claim 1 are mental process and the limitations “a communication interface”, “a processor configured to”, “a display device” “which are all a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitations “control the communication interface to receive, from a display device, content preference information”, “transmit content provider integrated information including, for each of the at least one content provider, the content provider use information and the suitability for use information to the display device through the communication interface” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information' and/or is insignificant extra solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “The Advisory Action makes several generalized comments in reply to Applicant's arguments. First, the Advisory Action states that the identified claim elements involve a mental process, and thus, the claim does not recite any improvement to the technology…. As argued, limitations the courts have found that indicate that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The Advisory Action did not address Applicant's improvement argument, but simply rested on the position of mental process, extra solution activity, and generic components”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that claims 1 and 19 recite additional elements “a communication interface”, “a processor configured to”, “a display device” which are all a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions do not provide integration into a practical application.
-“control the communication interface to receive, from a display device, content preference information” “transmit content provider integrated information including, for each of the at least one content provider, the content provider use information and the suitability for use information to the display device through the communication interface”
are insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information' and/or is insignificant extra solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Applicant argues that claims integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application by allegedly improving the functioning of a computer or other technology. However, the claims do not recite any specific improvement to computer functionality or to another technical field. Instead, the claim merely recites a generic server, a communication interface, and a processor, display device performing receiving, transmitting operations, which are insignificant extra solution activities. The claims do not recite how the technology is improved as required by MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Therefore. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “As to the instant specification, it describes that content providers often provide overlapping content. Since such content providers have overlapping content, the problem arises where the user may experience wasted money to pay for content providers in which the content is duplicated. See Pub. Specification, paras. 0005-0007. A technical solution to this problem is set out at para. 0009 of the specification, in which provider recommendation information (which includes suitability for use information) is generated, based on information from a user, and then transmitted to that user. Further details of this improvement are shown in Figs. 7 and 9, and described in the accompanying portions of the specification”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that Applicant argues that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by addressing overlapping content providers and generating and transmitting suitability-for-use information based on user preference information, as described in paragraphs [0005]–[0009] of the specification and illustrated in Figures 7–9. However, the claim does not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer, a communication network, or another technical field. Instead, the claimed content provider recommendation server receives content preference information from a display device, generates content provider use information and suitability for use information based on viewing history and subscription information, and transmits integrated information for display. These limitations amount to collecting, analyzing, and presenting information to assist a user in making subscription decisions. While Figures 7–9 illustrate example processing steps and tabular outputs (e.g., viewing time, acquisition rate, suitability percentages, and cancellation or maintenance recommendations), such disclosures reflect abstract data analysis and result presentation, not a technological improvement in computer operation, data storage, processing efficiency, or network performance. Accordingly, the additional elements merely apply the abstract idea using generic computer components performing receiving and displaying functions and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “As to the claims, they reflect this improvement since they specifically require generating suitability for use information based on the content provider user information (which is based on content preference information received from a user device), and then transmitting the suitability for use information to the device that provided the user information using the communication interface. Claim 2 (and now new claim 19) even specifically defines the content preference information as including content viewing history information and content provider subscription information, which are specifically referred to in the noted portions of the specification”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites although the claims recite generating suitability for use information based on content provider use information and transmitting such information to a user device, these limitations do not constitute an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technical field. The claims merely recite receiving content preference information, analyzing viewing history and subscription information, generating suitability or recommendation information, and transmitting the results for display. Such operations represent abstract data analysis and result presentation performed using generic computer components.
The generating content provider use information and suitability of use information is a mental process because human mind can generate use information and suitability for use information by evaluation and judgement of data. Defining the content preference information as including content viewing history information and content provider subscription information, as recited in claim 2 (now claim 19), merely specifies the type of data being analyzed and does not recite how the computer itself is improved. Accordingly, the additional elements amount to the application of the abstract idea using conventional computer functionality and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “The instant specification identifies a technical problem (overlapping content from providers), a solution (generating and transmitting suitability for use information to a user, based on received information from such user), and as such, the solution is reflected in the claims. Accordingly, claim 1 as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception, and thus, the claims are directed to eligible subject matter in accordance with MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1). The Advisory Action did not address this point on the merits, and instead but simply maintained the position of mental process, extra solution activity, and generic components”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that while Applicant characterizes overlapping content from providers as a “technical problem” and the generation and transmission of suitability for use information as a “technical solution,” the claims do not recite a technological improvement to the functioning of a computer, a communication network, or another technical field. Rather, claims recite receiving user preference information, analyzing viewing history and subscription information, generating suitability or recommendation information, and transmitting the results for display. These limitations describe abstract information generating/processing (mental process) and receiving/displaying (mere data gathering/displaying) and do not recite a technological improvement. Although the specification discusses overlapping content and reducing wasted subscription cost, the claims do not recite how the additional elements as cited in the claims improves technology or the functioning of the computer. There is no technical explanation as to how this improves the technology as required by MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Accordingly, the additional elements merely apply the abstract idea using generic computer components performing receiving, transmitting/displaying functions and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “As a further point, it is recognized that page 8 of the Office Action (and the Advisory Action) cites to MPEP § 2106(f) and takes the position that the additional elements of the claims merely represent instructions to apply the judicial exception on a generic computer, which does not provide integration into a practical application. In reply, Applicant submits that section 2106 (f) further provides that additional elements are more than "mere instructions" when the claim recites a technological solution to a technological problem. As set out above, the claims do indeed recite the technological solution of generating suitability for use information based on the content provider user information (which is based on content preference information received from a user device), and then transmitting the suitability for use information to the device that provided the user information using the communication interface. Accordingly, the Examiner's position in that the extra claim elements are merely instructions on a generic computer is in error. The Advisory Action did not address this point on the merits, and instead but simply maintained the position that the claims merely recite instructions. The Advisory Action is error since it did not consider the cited MPEP § 2106 (f), which provides that additional elements are more than "mere instructions" when the claim recites a technological solution to a technological problem. Applicant demonstrated that the claim recites such a technological solution, and thus, is more than "mere instruction" as it continues to be alleged”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that Applicant’s reliance on MPEP § 2106(f) is unpersuasive because the claims do not recite a technological solution to a technological problem. Although Applicant characterizes overlapping content from providers as a technical problem and the generation and transmission of suitability for use information as a technological solution, the claims merely recite receiving user preference information, analyzing viewing history and subscription information, generating suitability or recommendation information, and transmitting the results to a user device. These limitations describe abstract information processing and result presentation performed using generic computer components. The “generating suitability for use information based on content preference information received from a user display device” is a mental process by evaluation and judgment of data. The claims do not recite any improvement to computer functionality, data processing techniques, communication protocols, or another technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea using conventional computer operations, and therefore constitute “mere instructions” under MPEP § 2106(f) that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B:
With respect to Applicant’s argument “Regarding the first approach to find "significantly more" (improvements to the functioning of a computer), Applicant invites the Examiner attention to the analysis on this point set out above with regard to the Step 2A, Prong Two. In particular, Applicant has demonstrated above that the claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer, by virtue of the identification of a problem and solution in the specification, and the claims reciting such a solution. Thus, the claims recite "significantly more" than the judicial exception, and are therefore eligible subject matter. The Advisory Action did not address this point on the merits, and instead simply maintained the position that the claims do not recite "significantly more"”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the alleged “improvement to the functioning of a computer” is not recited in the claims as a specific technical improvement, but instead is merely a result of applying the abstract idea using generic computer components performing well-known, routine and conventional activities.
While Applicant asserts that the specification identifies a problem and solution, the claims themselves do not recite a particular technological improvement to computer functionality, such as an improvement to computer processing, memory usage, network efficiency, or other computer-centric operation. Rather, the claims recite receiving, generating, and presenting/displaying information. The generating information, use/suitability for use which are abstract ideas and receiving/transmitting/displaying are well-known routine and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as the recited computer components (e.g., processor, memory, display device) are used only to perform their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. As such, the claims do not satisfy Step 2B.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “The point is that the claims of the instant application are not only not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field, but such claims are directed to features that are not even present in the cited art. If a claim feature is not found in the prior art, such as the case here, then it likewise is also not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. Accordingly, the subject claim elements meet the "significantly more" requirement, and thus, the claims are directed toward eligible subject matter for this addition reason. Applicant submitted similar comments in both their first and latest response, and submits that the Examiner has overlooked the comments made by the Applicant. The point is that the claims recite certain features, and such features are not well-understood or routine, and thus the "significantly more" requirement is met. As proof, Applicant referred the Examiner to the arguments made in the § 103 rejection; the point being is if the prior art lacks teachings as to a certain claim element, one can easily conclude such a feature is not well-understood or routine. The Advisory Action did not address or even acknowledge this point and instead maintained the rejection”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner cites that the limitations “control the communication interface to receive, from a display device, content preference information” and “; “transmit content provider integrated information including, for each of the at least one content provider, the content provider use information and the suitability for use information to the display device through the communication interface” are well-known routine and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejections are not persuasive because 103 rejection and 101 rejections are two separate rejection and they do not depend on each other.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains that the claims do not recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea and are therefore not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/31/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14, 16-20 are fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wittke, Bates.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following reasons:
Claim 1:
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a “a content provider recommendation server” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate content provider use information about each of at least one content provider based on the content preference information received
-“generate suitability for use information for each of the at least one content provider, based on the content provider use information about each of the at least one content provider” recites a mental process because human mind can generate suitability for use information about each of the content provider by evaluating and judging the content provider use information. For example, human mind can look at the content provider use information and evaluate/judge the use information and recommend a content provider to use.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“a communication interface”, “a processor configured to”, “a display device”, “a content provider recommendation server” which are all a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“control the communication interface to receive, from a display device, content preference information” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information' and/or is insignificant extra solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“transmit content provider integrated information including, for each of the at least one content provider, the content provider use information and the suitability for use information to the display device through the communication interface” is insignificant extra solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“control the communication interface to receive, from a display device, content preference information” is well-understood, routine, conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“transmit content provider integrated information including, for each of the at least one content provider, the content provider use information and the suitability for use information to the display device through the communication interface” is well-understood, routine, conventional activities (WURC), see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate the suitability for use information for each of the at least one content provider further based on the content viewing history information and the content provider subscription information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate suitability for use information for each of the content provider based on the content viewing history information and the content provider subscription information by evaluation and judgment of data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the user content preference information received from the display device includes: content viewing history information and content provider subscription information” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Claim 3:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“a content information database for storing content metadata related to at least one piece of content: and” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“wherein the content metadata includes: information about at least one of a content ID, a content genre, or a content provider” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“a content information database for storing content metadata related to at least one piece of content: and” is WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363."
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate the content provider use information based on the content viewing history information and the content provider subscription information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate the content provider use information by evaluating and judging the content viewing history information and the content provider subscription information.
Claim 5:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate content acquisition rate information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate content security rate information by evaluating and judging the content viewing history information.
Claim 6:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate content viewing time information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate content viewing time information for each content provider by evaluating and judging the content viewing history information.
Claim 7:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate viewing time information by genre for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate content viewing time information for each content provider by evaluating and judging the content viewing history information by genre for each content provider.
Claim 8:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate use rate information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate user rate information for each content provider by evaluating and judging the content viewing history information.
Claim 9:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate content provider recommendation information for each of the at least one content provider, based on the content provider use information and the content provider subscription information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate content provider recommendation information by evaluating and judging the content provider subscription information.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“and wherein the content provider recommendation information includes the suitability for use information and recommendation information for each of the at least one content provider” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Claim 10:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate content acquisition rate information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate content acquisition rate for each of the at least one content provider based on the viewing history information by evaluating and judging the information included in the content provider viewing history information.
-“generate use rate information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate use rate information for the each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information by evaluating and judging the use rate/acquisition information included in the content provider use information.
-“generate the suitability for use information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content acquisition rate information and the use rate information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate suitability for use information by evaluating and judging the use rate/acquisition information included in the content provider use information.
Claim 11:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“based on the content provider subscription information, determine a content provider of the at least one content provider to which a user has not subscribed” recites a mental process because human mind can determine a content provider which has not subscribed by evaluating and judging the subscription information.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“and obtain the content acquisition rate information of the content provider to which the user has not subscribed as the suitability for use information” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information' (See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“and obtain the content acquisition rate of the content provider to which the user has not subscribed as the suitability for use” is WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“determine a content provider of the at least one content provider to which a user has subscribed based on the content provider subscription information” recites a mental process because human mind can determine a content provider which has subscribed by evaluating and judging the subscription information.
-“generate recommendation information recommending maintenance of subscription if the suitability for use information of the at least one content provider to which the user has subscribed is higher than or equal to a preset standard value” recites a mental process because human mind can generate a recommendation information recommending maintenance of subscription by identifying if the suitability for use of the content provider to which the user has subscribed is higher than or equal to a preset standard value by evaluating and judging the data provided. For example, human mind can evaluate/judge the subscription data and determine if the suitability for use of the content provider is higher than or equal to a preset standard value by a simple mental calculation.
Claim 13:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“determine a content provider of the at least one content provider to which a user has subscribed based on the content provider subscription information”, recites a mental process because human mind can determine a content provider which has subscribed by evaluating and judging the subscription information.
-“generate recommendation information to recommend cancellation of subscription if the suitability for use information of the at least one content provider to which the user has subscribed is less than a preset standard value” recites a mental process because human mind can generate a recommendation to recommend cancellation of subscription if the suitability for user of the content provider to which the user has subscribed is less than a preset standard value by evaluating and judging the data provided. For example, human mind can evaluate/judge the subscription data and determine if the suitability for use of the content provider is less than a preset standard value by a simple mental calculation.
Claim 14:
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“determine a content provider among the at least one content provider to which a user has not subscribed based on the content provider subscription information” recites a mental process because human mind can determine a content provider which has not subscribed by evaluating and judging the subscription information.
-“generate recommended information recommending a new subscription if the suitability for use information of the at least one content provider to which the user has not subscribed is higher than the suitability for use information of other content providers among the at least one content provider” recites a mental process because human mind can generate a recommendation recommending a new subscription if the suitability for use for the content provider which the user is not subscribed is higher than the suitability for use of other content providers by evaluating and judging the data provided. For example, human mind can evaluate/judge the subscription data and determine if the suitability for use of the content provider is higher than the suitability for use by a simple mental calculation.
Claim 16:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the content preference information includes content viewing time that the display device views content from all of the at least one content provider” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Claim 17:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“wherein the content provider use information includes a current status of a user's use of each of the at least one content provider” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
Claim 18:
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“generate the suitability for use information, for each of the at least one content provider, further based on: an amount of all content that a user has viewed using all of the of the at least one content providers, and which is also provided by a respective one of the at least one content provider, and a ratio of time that the user views content provided by the respective one of the at least one content provider” recites a mental process because human mind can generate suitability of use information to each content provider based on amount of all content that the user viewed using the content providers and a ration of time that the user views by the content provider by evaluation and judgement of data.
Claim 19:
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a “server” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
-“generate content provider use information for each of a plurality of content providers, based on the content viewing history information and the content provider subscription information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate content provider use information for each of the content provider based on the content viewing history information and the subscription information by evaluation and judgement of data.
-“generate suitability for use information for each of the plurality of content providers, based on the content acquisition rate information and the use rate information” recites a mental process because human mind can generate suitability for use information based on the content acquisition rate and use rate information by evaluation and judgment of data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
-“a communication interface”; “and a processor configured to”, “server” which are all a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
-“wherein the content provider use information includes, for each of the plurality of content providers, content acquisition rate information and use rate information” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data).
-“control the communication interface to receive, from a display device, content preference information that includes content viewing history information and content provider subscription information” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
-“control the communication interface to transmit, to the display device, content provider integrated information including, for each of the plurality of content providers, the content provider use information and the suitability for use information” is insignificant extra solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
-“control the communication interface to receive, from a display device, content preference information that includes content viewing history information and content provider subscription information” is WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
-“control the communication interface to transmit, to the display device, content provider integrated information including, for each of the plurality of content providers, the content provider use information and the suitability for use information” is WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or "iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9".
Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis of rejection of claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to: generate the suitability for use information for each of the plurality of content providers, further based on: an amount of all content that a user has viewed using all of the plurality of content providers” which is not supported by the specification.
Specification page 16, lines 18-20 discusses that total use time for each of the content provider. The specification does not describe an amount of all content the user has viewed using all the plurality of content providers, it is for each content provider. Therefore, the limitation lacks support.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 is not supported by the specification, therefore, it is not clear what is meant by the limitation. Therefore, the claim is ambiguous. For the purpose of the examination, it is interpreted as an amount of all content that a user has viewed for at least one content provider.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wittke et al. (US 2018/0367857).
With respect to claim 1, Wittke teaches a content provider recommendation server comprising: a communication interface; and a processor configured to ([0084, Control circuitry 704 may be based on any suitable processing circuitry such as processing circuitry 706. As referred to herein, processing circuitry should be understood to mean circuitry based on one or more microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors]):
control the communication interface to receive, from a display device, content preference information ([0004, The stored user preferences may be explicitly set by the user (e.g., in a favorites screen) or may be determined from a viewing history associated with the user. As a specific example, if a user has consumed multiple movies starring Tom Cruise, the media guidance application may determine that Tom Cruise is a favorite actor of the user. Upon determining the plurality of characteristics], fig. 5, 6, [0014, the media guidance application may generate a list, array, or another suitable data structure for a media asset referenced in the media asset preference data], the preference information regarding a content i.e. media asset from the display device from fig. 5, 6);
generate content provider use information about each of at least one content provider, based on the content preference information received from the display device ([0059, the media guidance application may calculate scores 304 for media asset providers 302 that media asset preference data was received from (e.g., which may be indicated by identifiers of media asset providers 302 in data structure 100)], [0060, that the user will consume each media asset from a particular media asset provider to calculate an overall score for the media asset provider (e.g., score 312 for media asset provider 306)], [0071, the guidance data may include program information, guidance application settings, user preferences, user profile information, media listings, media-related information (e.g., broadcast times, broadcast channels, titles, descriptions, ratings information (e.g., parental control ratings, critic's ratings, etc.),], each content provider score (use information) based on the ),
generate suitability for use information for each of the at least one content provider, based on the content provider use information about each of the at least one content provider ([0065, The mapping may be based on a stop-light color scheme, where a green background color correlates to a relatively higher ranking and red correlates to a relative lower rating. Thus, the media guidance application may generate for display the first indicator (e.g., indicator 402) with a green background color and the second indicator (e.g., indicator 406) with a red background color because the first score is greater than the second score], [0024, other media asset provider above a threshold ranking (e.g., a media asset is only available from the first media asset provider and not from any of the other top five ranked media asset providers). The media guidance application may generate for display identifiers of the media assets and an indication that none of the other top ranked media asset providers provide those media assets], the ranking is suitability of use information of a content provider, higher ranking score media asset provider has more suitable for the user than the lower ranking media asset provider),
transmit content provider integrated information including, for each of the at least one content provider, the content provider use information and the suitability for use information to the display device through the communication interface ([0023. the media guidance application may generate for display the numeric score associated with each media asset provider as part of the indicator. Alternatively or additionally, the media guidance application may generate for display a ranking associated with the media asset providers as part of the indicators], the media asset provider score (use information) and the ranking of media asset provider (suitability for use information) is transmitted to the client device and displayed).
With respect to claim 16, Wittke teaches the content provider recommendation server of claim 1, wherein the content preference information includes content viewing time that the display device views content from all of the at least one content provider ([0104, the viewer data may include current and/or historical user activity information (e.g., what content the user typically watches, what times of day the user watches content, whether the user interacts with a social network, at what times the user interacts with a social network to post information, what types of content the user typically watches (e.g., pay TV or free TV)], the time of the content based on the users viewing information).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 3,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittke et al. (US 2018/0367857) and in view of Schneider et al. (US 2014/0310353).
With respect to claim 2, Wittke teaches the content provider recommendation server of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein the content preference information received from the display device includes: content viewing history information and content provider subscription information, and wherein the controller is further configured to: generate the suitability for use information for each of the at least one content provider further based on the content viewing history information and the content provider subscription information.
However, Schneider teaches wherein the content preference information received from the display device includes: content viewing history information and content provider subscription information, and wherein the controller is further configured to: generate the suitability for use information for each of the at least one content provider further based on the content viewing history information and the content provider subscription information ([0035, this recommendation UI includes one or more entities of the content sharing platform 107 that are identified by recommendation module 122 based on current subscriptions of the user and/or an activity history of the user], [0057, 1 and method 200 of FIG. 2. As illustrated, the recommended suggestions section UI 410 includes entities 411-415 suggested to the user based on existing user subscriptions and/or user activity history], recommendation is based on users’ subscription information and user history information).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of Schneider’s i.e. content viewing history and subscription information of into the invention of Wittke to have viewing history and subscription information to determine suitability of use information. Wittke, Schneider are analogous art because both arts teach recommending channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates having subscription information/viewing history information to recommend personalized content providers faster (Schneider, [0007, generating a subscription to the selected entity for the user on the content sharing platform, using content items associated with the subscribed entity to originate a playlist for the user, and providing the playlist on the UI associated with the user]).
With respect to claim 3, Wittke and Schneider in combination teach the content provider recommendation server of claim 2, Wittke further teaches comprising: a content information database for storing content metadata related to at least one piece of wherein the content metadata includes: information about at least one of a content ID, a content genre, or a content provider ([0012, the data structure may be a list containing identifiers of media asset providers that the user has stored passwords for. As another example, the data structure may be a list containing identifiers of media asset providers that the user has explicitly indicated that he or she subscribes to (e.g., via input from a user input interface)], the media asset identifiers are stored in the data structure (database)).
With respect to claim 17, Wittke and Schneider in combination teach the content provider recommendation server of claim 1, Wittke further teaches wherein the content provider use information includes a current status of a user's use of each of the at least one content provider ([0018, content sharing platform playlists and subscriptions based on user history. In one implementation, a content sharing platform utilizes subscriptions and activity history of a user to originate an automatically-generated playlist for the user], the subscription information (status) of a user of a channel and viewing history (users use)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of Schneider’s i.e. users current status information of into the invention of Wittke to have users current status of a channel. Wittke, Schneider are analogous art because both arts teach recommending channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates having subscription information/viewing history information to recommend personalized content providers faster (Schneider, [0007, generating a subscription to the selected entity for the user on the content sharing platform, using content items associated with the subscribed entity to originate a playlist for the user, and providing the playlist on the UI associated with the user]).
Claim(s) 4, 6, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittke et al. (US 2018/0367857) and in view of Schneider et al. (US 2014/0310353) and in view of Bates et al. (US 2019/0208242).
With respect to claim 4, Wittke and Schneider in combination teach the content provider recommendation server of claim 3, but do not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to generate the content provider use information based on the content viewing history information and the content provider subscription information.
However, Bates teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate the content provider use information based on the content viewing history information and the content provider subscription information ([0006, The media guidance application determines a total viewing time associated with the subscriber and the plurality of media packages based on the viewing patterns of the subscriber. For example, the media guidance application may determine that the subscriber historically spends approximately 300 minutes viewing HBO shows in July and August], [0045, the media guidance application may determine whether new episodes of shows the subscriber has watched in the past are being released in the next month. The media guidance application may also, based on the subscriber's viewing history, determine how much time the subscriber typically spends watching media content in the upcoming period, i.e., in the next billing cycle, and how much of that time the media guidance application predicts the subscriber will spend watching media content outside of the upcoming media content subscription], the channel specific viewing time (use information) is generated based on the viewing history information and the channel subscription information).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of Bates’s i.e. content viewing history and subscription information to generate use information into the invention of Wittke/ Schneider to have viewing history and subscription information to determine use information. Wittke, Schneider, Bates are analogous art because each art teaches recommending channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates having subscription information/viewing history information to recommend personalized content providers more efficiently which will save users time (Bates, [0003, These improvements allow a system to efficiently manage a subscriber's resources both a long time and budget as subscriptions are automatically added and removed from a subscriber's set of active subscriptions. As a result, the overall viewing experience of the subscriber is improved as well as the subscriber's efficient use of subscriptions]).
With respect to claim 6, Wittke, Schneider, Bates in combination teach the content provider recommendation server of claim 4, Wittke further teaches comprising: wherein the processor is configured to generate content viewing time information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information ([0104, the viewer data may include current and/or historical user activity information (e.g., what content the user typically watches, what times of day the user watches content, whether the user interacts with a social network, at what times the user interacts with a social network to post information, what types of content the user typically watches (e.g., pay TV or free TV)], the time of the content based on the users viewing information).
With respect to claim 8, Wittke, Schneider, Bates in combination teach the content provider recommendation server of claim 4, Bates further teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate use rate information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information ([0011, A viewing impact may be associated with a show, a season within a series, an entire series, a movie, a channel, or a group of channels. Furthermore, a viewing impact may be stored as an amount of time, e.g., seconds, minutes, or hours, related to the consumption of media. Further, a viewing impact may be stored as a percentage of total viewing, e.g., 2%], the viewing rate (use rate) of media content from a channel).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of Bates’s i.e. use rate information into the invention of Wittke/ Schneider to have use rate information. Wittke, Schneider, Bates are analogous art because each art teaches recommending channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates the use to select the most appropriate subscription of a channel to view the preferred content of the users (Bates, [0003, These improvements allow a system to efficiently manage a subscriber's resources both a long time and budget as subscriptions are automatically added and removed from a subscriber's set of active subscriptions. As a result, the overall viewing experience of the subscriber is improved as well as the subscriber's efficient use of subscriptions]).
With respect to claim 9, Wittke and Schneider in combination teach the content provider recommendation server of claim 4, Bates further teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate content provider recommendation information based on the content provider use information and the content provider subscription information ([0056, he media guidance application 100 then generates a subscription recommendation for the upcoming time period. The media guidance application 100 generates the subscription recommendation according to the following process. The media guidance application 100 selects the first subscription and compares the first viewing impact to the available amount of time. For example, the media guidance application 100 selects the HBO subscription as a subscription it will recommend the subscriber maintains. The media guidance application 100 then compares the amount of time available to consume media, perhaps to 285 minutes in July and August], the viewing information of a channel and subscription information of a channel to determine recommendation of keeping or cancelling the subscription),
and wherein the content provider recommendation information includes the suitability for use information and recommendation information for each of the at least one content provider ([0022, the media guidance application may determine that it will be far more efficient for the subscriber to wait additional time to watch Game of Thrones through Amazon Prime instead of paying for an HBO subscription], [0056, the media guidance application 100 changes its recommendation to recommend that the subscriber cancels the Netflix subscription as the subscription is inefficient because the subscriber will not have time to consume media from Netflix based on the predictions made by media guidance application 100], the efficient and inefficient content provider (suitability of use information) and the recommendation for keeping/cancelling the subscription).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of Bates’s i.e. recommendation information into the invention of Wittke/Schneider to have recommendation information. Wittke, Schneider, Bates are analogous art because each art teaches recommending channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates the use to recommending information to users to select the most accurate content provider (Bates, [0003, These improvements allow a system to efficiently manage a subscriber's resources both a long time and budget as subscriptions are automatically added and removed from a subscriber's set of active subscriptions. As a result, the overall viewing experience of the subscriber is improved as well as the subscriber's efficient use of subscriptions]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittke et al. (US 2018/0367857) and in view of Schneider et al. (US 2014/0310353) and in view of Bates et al. (US 2019/0208242) and in view of Knoller et al. (US 2009/0055268).
With respect to claim 5, Wittke, Schneider, Bates in combination teach the content provider recommendation server of claim 4, but do not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to generate content acquisition rate information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information.
However, Knoller teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate content acquisition rate information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information ([0093, set top box 1 (STB1) watched CNN on Sundays between 12:00 and 13:00, 25%, means that during the learning period, the average time that this particular set top box watched CNN between 12:00 and 13:00 on Sundays was fifteen minutes], 25% (acquisition rate) for CNN).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of Knoller’s i.e. acquisition rate information into the invention of Wittke/ Schneider/Bates to have acquisition rate information. Wittke, Schneider, Bates, Knoller are analogous art because each art teaches recommending channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates the use to select the most appropriate subscription of a channel to view the preferred content of the users (Knoller, [0256, advertisers require being able to suggest their maximum price for a placement of an advertisement, in an efficient way]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittke et al. (US 2018/0367857) and in view of Schneider et al. (US 2014/0310353) and in view of Bates et al. (US 2019/0208242) and in view of Mori et al. (US 2009/0106786).
With respect to claim 7, Wittke, Schneider, Bates in combination teach the content provider recommendation server of claim 4, but do not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to generate viewing time information by genre for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information.
However, Mori teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate viewing time information by genre for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information (fig. 2, [0035, The viewing history data is a set of viewing records, for example, including viewing dates, days, viewing start times (In time), viewing end times (Out time), channels, genres, and titles], the channels and viewing time, genre information).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of Mori’s i.e. genre information into the invention of Wittke/Schneider/Bates to have genre information. Wittke, Schneider, Bates, Mori are analogous art because each art teaches recommending channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates selecting content provider precisely that will match users viewing behavior (Moris, [0057, the viewing record is replicated into 60 viewing records. By replicating the other data similarly, 140 viewing records in total are obtained from the original 10 data. By replicating the viewing records in this way, the number of learning data increases, thereby enhancing the reliability of the conditional probability values calculated from the conditional frequency table]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittke et al. (US 2018/0367857) and in view of Schneider et al. (US 2014/0310353) and in view of Bates et al. (US 2019/0208242) and in view of and in view of Knoller et al. (US 2009/0055268).
With respect to claim 10, Wittke, Schneider, Bates in combination teach the content provider recommendation server of claim 9, Bates teaches
wherein the processor is configured to: generate use rate information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information ([0011, A viewing impact may be associated with a show, a season within a series, an entire series, a movie, a channel, or a group of channels. Furthermore, a viewing impact may be stored as an amount of time, e.g., seconds, minutes, or hours, related to the consumption of media. Further, a viewing impact may be stored as a percentage of total viewing, e.g., 2%], the viewing impact of media content from a channel); generate the suitability for use information for each of the at least one content provider based on and the use rate information ([0022, the media guidance application may determine that it will be far more efficient for the subscriber to wait additional time to watch Game of Thrones through Amazon Prime instead of paying for an HBO subscription], [0056, The media guidance application 100 also compares the total viewing impact of Game and Thrones (445 minutes) and Mindhunter (0 minutes) for the months of July and August, 445 minutes total, with the available amount of time for viewing media content, 285 minutes in this example. The media guidance application 100 determines whether the sum of the viewing impacts exceeds the available amount of time], the efficient and inefficient content provider (suitability of use information) are determined based on the viewing impact rate (use rate)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of Bates’s i.e. use rate information and generating suitability for use information into the invention of Wittke/ Schneider to have use rate/suitability for use information. Wittke, Schneider, Bates are analogous art because each art teaches recommending channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates the use to select the most appropriate subscription of a channel to view the preferred content of the users (Bates, [0003, These improvements allow a system to efficiently manage a subscriber's resources both a long time and budget as subscriptions are automatically added and removed from a subscriber's set of active subscriptions. As a result, the overall viewing experience of the subscriber is improved as well as the subscriber's efficient use of subscriptions]).
Wittke, Schneider, Bates do not in combination teach generate content acquisition rate information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information; generate the suitability for use information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content acquisition rate information
However, Knoller teaches generate content acquisition rate information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content viewing history information ([0093, set top box 1 (STB1) watched CNN on Sundays between 12:00 and 13:00, 25%, means that during the learning period, the average time that this particular set top box watched CNN between 12:00 and 13:00 on Sundays was fifteen minutes], 25% (acquisition rate) for CNN);
generate the suitability for use information for each of the at least one content provider based on the content acquisition rate information but not limited to, audio content], the target rating (suitability for use information) is calculated based on the percentage of content viewing from a specific channel).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of Knoller’s i.e. acquisition rate/suitability for use information into the invention of Wittke/ Schneider/Bates to have acquisition rate/suitability for use information. Wittke, Schneider, Bates. Knoller are analogous art because each art teaches recommending channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates the use to select the most appropriate subscription of a channel to view the preferred content of the users (Knoller, [0256, r, advertisers require being able to suggest their maximum price for a placement of an advertisement, in an efficient way]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittke et al. (US 2018/0367857) and in view of Schneider et al. (US 2014/0310353) and in view of Bates et al. (US 2019/0208242) and in view of and in view of Knoller et al. (US 2009/0055268) and in view of Lewis et al. (US 9,392,312).
With respect to claim 11, Wittke, Schneider, Bates, Knoller in combination teach the content provider recommendation server of claim 10, but do not explicitly teach
wherein the processor is configured to: based on the content provider subscription information, determine a content provider of the at least one content provider to which a user has not subscribed ([0012, the media guidance application may transmit the plurality of characteristics to media asset providers that the user subscribes to and not to media asset providers that the user is not subscribed to]), but do not explicitly teach and obtain the content acquisition rate information of the content provider to which the user has not subscribed as the suitability for use information.
However, Lewis teaches obtain the content acquisition rate information of the content provider to which the user has not subscribed as the suitability for use information ([col. 13, lines 52-55, “For example, the channel subscription module 335 may determine that a first user has viewed a certain number of videos from a channel (e.g., has viewed five, fifteen, etc., videos from a channel) but that the user is not subscribed to the channel. Because the user has viewed videos from this channel before, it may be likely that the user is interested in the content (e.g., media items) of the channel], the viewing frequency of an unsubscribed channel).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of Lewis’s i.e. invention unsubscribed channel information into the invention of Wittke/Schneider/Bates/Knoller to have unsubscribed channel information. Wittke, Schneider, Bates, Knoller, Lewis is analogous art because each art teaches recommending channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates the use to select the most appropriate subscription of a channel to view the preferred content of the users ([Lewis, col. 13, lines 52-55, “For example, the channel subscription module 335 may determine that a first user has viewed a certain number of videos from a channel (e.g., has viewed five, fifteen, etc., videos from a channel) but that the user is not subscribed to the channel. Because the user has viewed videos from this channel before, it may be likely that the user is interested in the content (e.g., media items) of the channel]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittke et al. (US 2018/0367857) and in view of Schneider et al. (US 2014/0310353) and in view of Bates et al. (US 2019/0208242) and in view of Knoller et al. (US 2009/0055268) and in view of Sinha et al. (US 2016/0225025).
With respect to claim 12, Wittke, Schneider, Bates, Knoller in combination teach the content provider recommendation server of claim 10, Wittke teaches wherein the processor is configured to: determine a content provider of the at least one content provider to which a user has subscribed based on the content provider subscription information ([0012, determine the plurality of media asset providers to transmit the plurality of characteristics based on which media asset providers the user subscribes to]), but do not explicitly teach and generate recommendation information recommending maintenance of subscription if the suitability for use information of the at least one content provider to which the user has subscribed is higher than or equal to a preset standard value.
However, Sinha teaches generate recommendation information recommending maintenance of subscription if the suitability for use information of the at least one content provider to which the user has subscribed is higher than or equal to a preset standard value ([0086, the marketing system 102 may determine a threshold value that indicates a threshold above which an un-subscription score indicates a high probability of un-subscription], the un-subscription score is above a threshold which indicates that the user will not un-subscription (recommending maintenance)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of Sinha i.e. maintaining the subscription according to a threshold into the invention of Wittke/Schneider/Bates/Knoller to have maintaining subscription according to the threshold. Wittke, Schneider, Bates, Knoller, Sinha is analogous art because each art teaches recommending channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates the use to select the most appropriate subscription of a channel to view the preferred content of the users (Sinha [0104, the marketing system 102 may nonetheless determine that the potential benefits outweigh the potential risk of un-subscription]).
Claim(s) 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittke et al. (US 2018/0367857) and in view of Schneider et al. (US 2014/0310353) and in view of Bates et al. (US 2019/0208242) and in view of Knoller et al. (US 2009/0055268) and in view of Furusawa et al. (US 2008/0172696).
With respect to claim 13, Wittke, Schneider, Bates, Knoller in combination teach the content provider recommendation server of claim 10, Wittke further teaches
wherein the processor is configured to: determine a content provider of the at least one content provider to which a user has subscribed based on the content provider subscription information ([0012, determine the plurality of media asset providers to transmit the plurality of characteristics based on which media asset providers the user subscribes to]), but do not explicitly teach and generate recommendation information to recommend cancellation of subscription if the suitability for use information of the at least one content provider to which the user has subscribed is less than a preset standard value.
However, Furusawa teaches generate recommendation information to recommend cancellation of subscription if the suitability for use information of the at least one content provider to which the user has subscribed is less than a preset standard value ([0175, judging that a channel whose broadcast frequency is below the cancellation reference frequency is a channel for which cancellation is to be suggested], examiner’s note: cancelling a subscription if the channel (content provider) broadcast frequency (suitability for use) is below a threshold (less than a preset standard value)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the functionalities of Furusawa i.e. cancellation of subscription when the suitability of use is below a standard value with the invention of Wittke, Schneider, Bates, Knoller, Furusawa are analogous art because all the arts teach viewing/watching channels/contents and storing the information regarding the channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates cancellation of subscription when the preset value is not met to meet users preferences and provide suggestions that more accurately reflect users preferences as described by Furusawa, [0022, canceling of a subscription to a pay channel is made in accordance with recommended programs estimated to meet the user's preferences. Therefore, suggestions that more accurately reflect the user's preferences can be made compared to conventional techniques]).
With respect to claim 14, Wittke, Schneider, Bates, Knoller in combination teach the content provider recommendation server of claim 10, Witte further teaches
wherein the processor is configured to: determine the content provider of the at least one content provider to which a user has not subscribed based on the content provider subscription information ([0012, the media guidance application may transmit the plurality of characteristics to media asset providers that the user subscribes to and not to media asset providers that the user is not subscribed to]) but do not explicitly teach generate recommendation information to recommend cancellation of subscription if the suitability for use information of the at least one content provider to which the user has subscribed is less than a preset standard value.
However, Furusawa teaches generate recommendation information to recommend cancellation of subscription if the suitability for use information of the at least one content provider to which the user has not subscribed is less than a preset standard value ([0175, the subscription reference frequency with the broadcast frequency of recommended programs for each unsubscribed pay channel in the frequency distribution information, and judging that a channel whose broadcast frequency exceeds the subscription reference frequency is a channel to which subscription is to be suggested], examiner’s note: recommending a new subscription when the broadcast frequency (suitability for use) of the unsubscribed channels (content providers) is higher than threshold (higher than other channels)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of Furusawa i.e. determining channels that the user is not subscribed and recommending new subscriptions when the suitability of use for a channel is higher than other channels with the invention of Wittke, Schneider, Bates, Knoller, Furusawa are analogous art because all the arts teach viewing/watching channels/contents and storing the information regarding the channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates channel subscription suggestions more accurately to reflect users preference as described by Furusawa, [0265, channel subscription suggestion apparatus of the first embodiment can make suggestions that more accurately reflect the user's preferences than with conventional techniques]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittke et al. (US 2018/0367857) and in view of Bates et al. (US 2019/0208242) and in view of Serboncini et al. (US 2017/0345032).
With respect to claim 18, Wittke teaches the content provider recommendation server of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to: generate the suitability for use information, for each of the at least one content provider, further based on: an amount of all content that a user has viewed using all of the of the at least one content providers, and which is also provided by a respective one of the at least one content provider, and a ratio of time that the user views content provided by the respective one of the at least one content provider.
However, Bates teaches generate the suitability for use information, for each of the at least one content provider, further based on: an amount of all content that a user has viewed using all of the of the at least one content providers, and which is also provided by a respective one of the at least one content provider ([0129, The control circuitry 604 determines a total viewing time associated with the subscriber and the plurality of media packages based on the viewing patterns of the subscriber. For example, the control circuitry 604 may determine that the subscriber historically spends approximately 300 minutes viewing HBO shows in July and August.t], total number of views from HBO).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of Bates’s i.e. total content viewing information into the invention of Wittke to have total number of content viewing time from a subscriber. Wittke, Bates are analogous art because each art teaches recommending channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates recommending personalized content providers more efficiently which will save users time (Bates, [0003, These improvements allow a system to efficiently manage a subscriber's resources both a long time and budget as subscriptions are automatically added and removed from a subscriber's set of active subscriptions. As a result, the overall viewing experience of the subscriber is improved as well as the subscriber's efficient use of subscriptions]).
Wittke and Bates do not in combination teach and a ratio of time that the user views content provided by the respective one of the at least one content provider.
However, Serboncini teaches and a ratio of time that the user views content provided by the respective one of the at least one content provider ([0049, if a ratio between user views versus user accesses of content or shared content associated with the channel is below a predetermined threshold, a determination may be made that the created audience may be reduced in size], ratio of content views from a channel (content provider)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of Serboncini i.e. ratio of views of a channel into the invention of Wittke/Bates to have ratio of views from a channel. Wittke, Bates, Serboncini are analogous art because each art teaches recommending channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates recommending personalized content providers more efficiently which will save users time (Serboncini, [0017, employ techniques for improving the click-through rate of shared content served along with other content. The content sharing service may monetize the serving of shared content and receive compensation commensurate with the number of times the shared content is clicked through]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and in view of Bates et al. (US 2019/0208242) and in view of Knoller et al. (US 2009/0055268) and in view of Wittke et al. (US 2018/0367857).
With respect to claim 19, Bates teaches a server comprising: a communication interface; and a processor configured to ([0086, Control circuitry 604 may be based on any suitable processing circuitry such as processing circuitry 606. As referred to herein, processing circuitry should be understood to mean circuitry based on one or more microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors], [0087, In client-server based embodiments, control circuitry 604 may include communications circuitry suitable for communicating with a guidance application server or other networks or servers…communications circuitry may include circuitry that enables peer-to-peer communication of user equipment devices, or communication of user equipment devices in locations remote from each other (described in more detail below)], server and processor):
control the communication interface to receive, from a display device, content preference information that includes content viewing history information and content provider subscription information ([0011, Still further, a viewing impact may be associated with a specific time period in the past or future, or may be indicative the viewer's recorded viewing history], [0015, the media guidance application may predict that a show that hadn't been watched previously by a user is correlated with the user's viewing history and viewing preferences], [0045, The media guidance application may also, based on the subscriber's viewing history, determine how much time the subscriber typically spends watching media content in the upcoming period, i.e., in the next billing cycle, and how much of that time the media guidance application predicts the subscriber will spend watching media content outside of the upcoming media content subscription], [fig. 7], users equipment, i.e. television, computer, mobile devices et are display device and the remote server includes the communication interface which receives users viewing history and subscription information (preference information) from the users display devices);
generate content provider use information for each of a plurality of content providers, based on the content viewing history information and the content provider subscription information ([0006, The media guidance application determines a total viewing time associated with the subscriber and the plurality of media packages based on the viewing patterns of the subscriber. For example, the media guidance application may determine that the subscriber historically spends approximately 300 minutes viewing HBO shows in July and August], [0045, the media guidance application may determine whether new episodes of shows the subscriber has watched in the past are being released in the next month. The media guidance application may also, based on the subscriber's viewing history, determine how much time the subscriber typically spends watching media content in the upcoming period, i.e., in the next billing cycle, and how much of that time the media guidance application predicts the subscriber will spend watching media content outside of the upcoming media content subscription], the channel specific viewing time (use information) is generated based on the viewing history information and the channel subscription information), wherein the content provider use information includes, for each of the plurality of content providers, and use rate information ([0011, A viewing impact may be associated with a show, a season within a series, an entire series, a movie, a channel, or a group of channels. Furthermore, a viewing impact may be stored as an amount of time, e.g., seconds, minutes, or hours, related to the consumption of media. Further, a viewing impact may be stored as a percentage of total viewing, e.g., 2%], the viewing rate (use rate) of media content from a specific channel));
generate suitability for use information for each of the plurality of content providers, and the use rate information ([0022, the media guidance application may determine that it will be far more efficient for the subscriber to wait additional time to watch Game of Thrones through Amazon Prime instead of paying for an HBO subscription], [0056, The media guidance application 100 also compares the total viewing impact of Game and Thrones (445 minutes) and Mindhunter (0 minutes) for the months of July and August, 445 minutes total, with the available amount of time for viewing media content, 285 minutes in this example. The media guidance application 100 determines whether the sum of the viewing impacts exceeds the available amount of time], [0065, the media guidance application 100 may generate information screen 110 for display to the subscriber. Information screen 110 contains information that informs the subscriber that the media guidance application recommends the subscriber cancel the second subscription, e.g., Netflix], the efficient and inefficient content provider, cancel/maintain subscription (suitability of use information) are determined based on the viewing impact rate (use rate)).
control the communication interface to transmit, to the display device, content provider integrated information including, for each of the plurality of content providers, and the suitability for use information ([0066, the media guidance application 100 may indicate, in information screen 110, that the user can spend 80% of his predicted viewing time watching content in HBO for a cost of $15 for the month. The media guidance application 100 may also indicate that, based on current budget constraints, that choice would require the user forego his Netflix subscription, at a cost of $10 for the month, and that the Netflix could account for 70% of his predicted viewing time for the month…After presenting this information, the media guidance application 100 may provide fine grain control of each subscription including allowing the user to override the subscription recommendations by, for example, choosing to maintain (i.e., keep active) subscriptions to all media content], the keep/cancel (suitability of use information) is displayed to the user).
Bates does not explicitly teach wherein the content provider use information includes, for each of the plurality of content providers, content acquisition rate information and use rate information; generate suitability for use information for each of the plurality of content providers, based on the content acquisition rate information
However, Knoller teaches wherein the content provider use information includes, for each of the plurality of content providers, content acquisition rate information generate suitability for use information for each of the plurality of content providers, based on the content acquisition rate information
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of Knoller’s i.e. acquisition rate/suitability for use information into the invention of Bates to have acquisition rate/suitability for use information. Wittke, Schneider, Bates. Knoller are analogous art because each art teaches recommending channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates the user to select the most appropriate subscription of a channel to view the preferred content of the users (Knoller, [0256, r, advertisers require being able to suggest their maximum price for a placement of an advertisement, in an efficient way]).
Bates and Knoller in combination do not explicitly teach control the communication interface to transmit, to the display device, content provider integrated information including, for each of the plurality of content providers, the content provider use information.
However, Wittke teaches control the communication interface to transmit, to the display device, content provider integrated information including, for each of the plurality of content providers, the content provider use information ([0023. the media guidance application may generate for display the numeric score associated with each media asset provider as part of the indicator. Alternatively or additionally, the media guidance application may generate for display a ranking associated with the media asset providers as part of the indicators], the media asset provider score (use information) and the ranking of media asset provider (suitability for use information) is transmitted to the client device and displayed).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of Wittke’s i.e. displaying use information into the invention of Bates/Knoller to display use information. Bates, Knoller, Wittke are analogous art because each art teaches recommending channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates the user to select the most appropriate subscription of a channel to view the preferred content of the users (Wittke, [0013, This may allow the process to operate more efficiently because the media asset provider does not have to process and receive data for characteristics that are not supported, thus returning results to the media guidance application quicker]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Bates et al. (US 2019/0208242) and in view of Knoller et al. (US 2009/0055268) and in view of Wittke et al. (US 2018/0367857) and in view of Serboncini et al. (US 2017/0345032).
With respect to claim 20, Bates, Knoller and Wittke in combination teach the content provider recommendation server of claim 19, Bates further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: generate the suitability for use information, for each of the at least one content provider, further based on: an amount of all content that a user has viewed using all of the of the plurality of content providers, and which is also provided by a respective one of the at least one content provider ([0129, The control circuitry 604 determines a total viewing time associated with the subscriber and the plurality of media packages based on the viewing patterns of the subscriber. For example, the control circuitry 604 may determine that the subscriber historically spends approximately 300 minutes viewing HBO shows in July and August.t], total number of views from HBO).
Bates, Knoller and Wittke do not in combination teach a ratio of time that the user views content provided by the respective one of the at least one content provider.
However, Serboncini teaches and a ratio of time that the user views content provided by the respective one of the at least one content provider ([0049, if a ratio between user views versus user accesses of content or shared content associated with the channel is below a predetermined threshold, a determination may be made that the created audience may be reduced in size], ratio of content views from a channel (content provider)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the invention of Serboncini i.e. ratio of views of a channel into the invention of Bates/Knoller, Wittke to have ratio of views from a channel. Bates, Knoller, Wittke, Serboncini are analogous art because each art teaches recommending channels/contents.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because it facilitates recommending personalized content providers more efficiently which will save users time (Serboncini, [0017, employ techniques for improving the click-through rate of shared content served along with other content. The content sharing service may monetize the serving of shared content and receive compensation commensurate with the number of times the shared content is clicked through]).
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATIMA P MINA whose telephone number is (571)270-3556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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.
/FATIMA P MINA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159