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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but, are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craner et al. (US 2009/0100478) in view of Mathur (US 2020/0329260) and further in view of Miller (US 2015/0003814).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Craner teaches: A method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium for optimizing storage of media content on storage resources at a home [managing the storage of recordings in a recording device, such as in a home (abstract, par. 2, Fig. 1)], the method comprising:
identifying a recording pattern of a user recording media content items to the storage resources at the home [determining the user’s history of recordings, including a pattern such as recording only Yankees road games (par. 85, 112-114, 129)]
determining an amount of the storage resources available to the user [determining how much space the user has remaining under the user's storage limit (par. 65, 81, and 100, Fig. 7, 11, and 14)]
determining a predicted time that a recorded content amount to the storage resources will reach a first threshold storage level based on the recording pattern and the amount of the storage resources [predicting that at a particular time, such as the time when a recording is scheduled to be made, the amount of storage space that will be available and that this storage level is insufficient based on the identified past and scheduled recordings, and predicted future recordings, future deletions, and current amount of resources used (par. 84-85, 99-100, 102-103, 112-116, and 126-127)]
selecting at least one media content item to delete from the storage resources at the home [determining a prior recording to delete using any suitable criteria, for example whether the prior recording was watched, the priority of the prior recording, whether the prior recording will be transmitted again in the future (and can be re-recorded) (par. 125)] and
sending a recommendation to the user to delete the at least one media content item from the storage resources [prompt the user to delete a recording by making a recommendation (par. 125)].
Craner does not explicitly disclose: the home is a multi-dwelling unit (MDU); determining a time, based upon a historical deletion pattern of the user, to send a recommendation to the user to delete the at least one medic content item from the storage resources; and the recommendation is sent at the determined time.
Mathur teaches: the home is a multi-dwelling unit (MDU) [a DVR storage 245 at a facility location 110, such as a hotel, motel, dormitory, short-term residence facility, resort, cruise ship (par. 18 and 36, Fig. 1A-2)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Craner and Mathur before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Craner by incorporating the multi-dwelling unit (MDU) of Mathur. The motivation for doing so would have been to offer DVR services at a facility, such as a hotel, cruise ship, or dormitory (Mathur – par. 13-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Craner and Mathur in obtaining the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Mathur does not explicitly disclose: determining a time, based upon a historical deletion pattern of the user, to send a recommendation to the user to delete the at least one medic content item from the storage resources; and the recommendation is sent at the determined time.
Miller teaches: determining a time, based upon a historical deletion pattern of the user, to send a recommendation to the user to delete the at least one medic content item from the storage resources; and the recommendation is sent at the determined time [analyzing past deletion history of media assets and determining a deletion pattern. For example, a user of a device frequently deletes recordings of a particular media category. Determining that the recording device is or will be reaching a full storage capacity and generate recommendations of possible media assets to delete, such as in an alert or notification that may be sent immediately or stored for display at a later time (par. 6-7, 9-14, 20, 23-24, 85-86, 104-106, 124, 140-141, and 151, Fig. 5, 7, 12, and 15)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Craner, Mathur, and Miller before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Craner and Mathur by incorporating sending the recommendation at a time based upon a historical deletion pattern of the user as disclosed by Miller. The motivation for doing so would have been to help the user better manage their DVR recordings (Miller – par. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Craner and Mathur with Miller to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Craner, Mathur, and Miller teach the method of claim 1; Craner further teaches: selecting the at least one media content item to delete, by: identifying recorded media content items that the user has consumed; generating a priority list of the recorded media content items that the user has consumed; and selecting the at least one media content item from the priority list based on a length of time the at least one media content item has been stored on the storage resources [determining which prior recording to delete includes identifying whether the prior recording was watched, determining a priority of the recording, ranking the recordings by priority, and assigning the lowest priority to the oldest recording (par. 69, 95, and 125)].
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Craner, Mathur, and Miller teach the method of claim 1; Craner and Mathur further teach: determining the storage resources include a storage device connected to an on-premises server at the MDU [Mathur – Facility cloud host 200 may be one or more servers connected to DVR storage 245 (par. 30 and 36, Fig. 2)]
determining a storage capacity at the on-premises server allocated for the user; and determining the amount of the storage resources available to the user based on storage resources locally available on the storage device and based further upon the on-premises server storage allocation for the user [Craner - determine the storage limit (e.g., the maximum storage available to the user on recording device) associated with the user, and determine the difference between the current amount of used storage space and the user's storage limit (par. 100). Mathur - Facility cloud host 200 may determine the storage space available (par. 46, 48, Fig. 2)].
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Craner, Mathur, and Miller teach the method of claim 1; Craner further teaches: in response to the recorded content amount reaching a second threshold; selecting one or more recorded media content items for removal from the storage resources; and deleting the one or more recorded media content items from the storage resources [When a user reaches his storage space limit, media with low priority may be determined, and the low priority media may be automatically deleted (par. 69)].
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Craner, Mathur, and Miller teach the method of claim 1; Craner further teaches: determining an activity level of recording and consuming media content by the user; and determining a type of storage to store recorded media content for the user based on the activity level of the user [determining the amount of recording and consumption the user is expected to do, and either storing the media recording within the user’s allocated space or storing the media recording using space borrowed from another user (par. 100-103, 113, and 115)].
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Craner, Mathur, and Miller teach the method of claim 1; Craner and Mathur further teach: the storage resources include a storage device connected to at least one cloud-based storage device, wherein the amount of the storage resources includes storage resources available at the at least one cloud-based storage device [Craner - a remote server may be used for recording (e.g., network DVR) (par. 60). Each user assigned a storage limit defining the amount of storage each user is entitled to (abstract). Mather – Master cloud host 170 may store DVR content (par. 27-28 and 41, Fig. 1A)].
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craner et al. (US 2009/0100478) in view of Mathur (US 2020/0329260), further in view of Miller (US 2015/0003814), and further in view of Kemp (US 2021/0185387).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Craner, Mathur, and Miller teach the method of claim 1; Craner, Mathur, and Miller do not explicitly disclose: the at least one media content item is identified by at least one machine-learning algorithm, wherein the at least one machine-learning algorithm is trained based on at least one dataset associated with previously identified media content items.
Kemp teaches: the at least one media content item is identified by at least one machine-learning algorithm, wherein the at least one machine-learning algorithm is trained based on at least one dataset associated with previously identified media content items [training a machine learning model based on the user viewing history (par. 44). Identifying recorded multimedia items to delete based on the machine learning model (par. 39 and 58)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Craner, Mathur, Miller, and Kemp before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Craner, Mathur, and Miller by incorporating the teaching of Kemp such that the at least one media content item is identified by at least one machine-learning algorithm trained based on at least one dataset associated with previously identified media content items. The motivation for doing so would have been to free up storage space by removing the multimedia items that are least relevant to the user (Kemp – par. 39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Craner, Mathur, and Miller with Kemp to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Boyd whose telephone number is (571)270-0676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER BOYD/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
/BENJAMIN R BRUCKART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2424