Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
The amendments to the claims, filed on 03/31/2026, have been entered and made of record.
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 1, 7, 11, 17 and 20 being amended.
Response to Arguments
Arguments presented in the Remarks (“Remarks") filed on 03/31/2026 have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S Patent Application No. 18/745500 Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are similar to the claims in the copending application to meet the limitations claimed in the instant application. Table 1 shows comparison between the instant claims and the copending application claims. The different limitations in the claims are obvious variants in view of the claim rejection below.
This is a provisionally obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Table 1: Comparison of claims in instant Application No. 18/745486 vs. Application No. 18/745500
Appl. 18/745486
Appl. 18/745500
1. A system for generating recommendations for receivable over-the-air audio content, the system comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors in communication with the one or more memories, the one or more processors configured to:
receive geographic identification data associated with a user device;
determine one or more radio stations receivable by the user device based at least in part on the geographic identification data;
detect a user listening activity based on an image or a voice of the user, wherein the user listening activity includes one or more user actions or behaviors occurring while the user listens to first audio content broadcast by a first radio station;
identify information related to the first audio content broadcast by the first radio station during the detected user listening activity;
identify program information related to the one or more radio stations receivable by the user device;
generate a recommendation based on the identified information related to the first audio content broadcast by the first radio station and the identified program information related to the one or more radio stations receivable by the user device; and
output the generated recommendation to the user device.
1. A system for audio content and radio programming recommendations, the system comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors in communication with the one or more memories, the one or more processors configured to:
determine one or more radio stations receivable by a user device;
detect a user listening activity occurring while a user listens to a portion of a first audio content broadcast by a first radio station, wherein the user listening activity includes mood or emotions determined from biometric information of the user while the user listens to the first audio content;
identify one or more keywords associated with first audio content broadcast by a first radio station during the detected user listening activity;
generate a recommendation for second audio content based on the identified one or more keywords associated with the first audio content; and
output the generated recommendation to the user device.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-3, 11-13, 16 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow et al. (“Dow”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2017/0201874 A1] in view of Odell et al. (“Odell”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2005/0043067 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Dow meets the claim limitations as follows:
A system for generating recommendations for receivable over-the-air audio content, the system comprising [Fig. 2, 3: para. 0028: ‘the device 10 and/or the mobile device 52’]:
one or more memories (i.e. ‘a memory 82’) [Fig. 3; para. 0028]; and one or more processors (i.e. ‘a processor or processing unit 80’) [Fig. 3; para. 0028] in communication with the one or more memories, the one or more processors configured to:
receive geographic identification data associated with a user device (i.e. ‘the mobile device’) [Fig. 6: ‘133’; para. 0062: ‘the mobile device determines the location of the device’; ‘the location is compared to a coverage map that identifies radio stations’];
determine one or more radio stations receivable (i.e. ‘detecting radio broadcast signals’; ‘detecting available radio stations’; or ‘switch station’) [para. 0030-0033] by the user device (i.e. ‘the device 10 and/or the mobile device 52’) [Fig. 2, 3: para. 0028] based at least in part on the geographic identification data [Fig. 6: ‘133’, ‘136’; para. 0062: ‘the mobile device determines the location of the device’; ‘the location is compared to a coverage map that identifies radio stations’; ‘Switch station’];
detect a user listening activity (i.e. ‘receiving user preferences’; ‘evaluating user preferences’) [para. 0030-0033, 0038: ‘a preference for talk radio’; ‘a genre such as politics, news, sports, comedy, etc.’; ‘a genre such as rock, rap, alternative, …’] based on an image or a voice of the user, wherein the user listening activity includes one or more user actions or behaviors occurring while the user listens to first audio content broadcast by a first radio station;
identify information (i.e. ‘to identify a radio broadcast’) related to the first audio content broadcast (i.e. ‘being associated with a particular source, e.g., a particular radio station’) by the first radio station during the detected user listening activity (i.e. ‘receiving user preferences’; ‘evaluating user preferences’) [Fig. 4: ‘113’; ‘114’; para. 0030-0033, 0043-0044];
identify program information related to the one or more radio stations receivable by the user device [Fig. 4: ‘113’; ‘114’; para. 0043-0044: ‘user preference data for comparison with radio broadcasts detected’; ‘the device to identify a radio broadcast … that allows the device to correlate a radio broadcast with one or more categories … ‘];
generate a recommendation (i.e. ‘select one or more preferred broadcasts’; ‘the device performs an action such as displaying a list of available radio broadcasts along with identification and/or category information to the user’) [Fig. 4: ‘114’; para. 0014, 0049-0050] based on the identified information related to the first audio content broadcast by the first radio station and the identified program information related to the one or more radio stations receivable by the user device (i.e. ‘satisfy user preferences to determine the most preferred station’) [para. 0049-0050]; and
output the generated recommendation to the user device (i.e. ‘displaying a list of available radio broadcasts along with identification and/or category information to the user’) [Fig. 4: ‘115’; para. 0049].
Dow does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
detect a user listening activity based on an image or a voice of the user, wherein the user listening activity includes one or more user actions or behaviors occurring while the user listens to first audio content broadcast by a first radio station;
However in the same field of endeavor Odell discloses the deficient claim as follows:
detect a user listening activity (i.e. ‘a microphone that is configured to receive an audible from an operator of the vehicle radio system’) [Figs. 1-3; para. 0007] based on an image or a voice of the user, wherein the user listening activity includes one or more user actions or behaviors occurring while the user listens to first audio content broadcast by a first radio station [Figs. 1-3; para. 0007, 0017-0024: ‘to tune the digital radio receiver 16’];
Dow and Odell are combinable because they are from the same field of data broadcast system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Dow and Odell as motivation to include voice commands to tune the digital radio receiver [Odell: para. 0017-0019].
Regarding claim 2, Dow meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein the user listening activity includes tuning the user device (i.e. tune or scan) [Fig. 4: ‘112’; ‘115’; para. 0003, 0050: ‘automatically tune the receiver’; ‘to scan for available radio broadcasts’] to a first broadcast channel for the first radio station or remaining on the first broadcast channel for a threshold time period (i.e. ‘broadcast signals having a magnitude or strength that is greater than a threshold’) [para. 0039-0041: ‘Scanning may be performed … periodically or in response a detected condition such as a change in signal strength’].
Dow does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the user listening activity includes tuning the user device to a first broadcast channel for the first radio station or remaining on the first broadcast channel for a threshold time period.
However in the same field of endeavor Odell discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the user listening activity includes tuning the user device to a first broadcast channel for the first radio station [Figs. 1-3; para. 0007, 0017-0024: ‘to tune the digital radio receiver 16’] or remaining on the first broadcast channel for a threshold time period [para. 0024: ‘allowing a user to command the radio to periodically or continuously search for a particular song or artist and to tune a particular channel whenever his/her favorite song/artist is played’]
Dow and Odell are combinable because they are from the same field of data broadcast system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Dow and Odell as motivation to include voice commands to tune the digital radio receiver [Odell: para. 0017-0019].
Regarding claim 3, Dow meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to retrieve metadata of the first audio content from a database and transmit the metadata to the user device, wherein the metadata includes information related to an artist, composer, published date, or genre [para. 0040: ‘the radio signal may include … (e.g., metadata) that … may provide other information such as category or genre’].
Regarding claim 11, the corresponding method in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 12, the corresponding method in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 2, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 13, the corresponding method in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 3, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 20, the claim of “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by one or more processors” is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Claims 4, 6, 14, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow in view of Odell in further view of Gutta et al. (“Gutta”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2002/0142722 A1]
Regarding claim 4, Dow meets the claim limitations as follows:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine preference data (i.e. ‘compare to user preferences’) [Fig. 4: ‘114’; para. 0030, 0037, 0050, 0057: ‘receiving user preferences’] or historical data for the user based on one or more previous listening activities for the user; and generate the recommendation (i.e. ‘display list of preferred radio stations and/or broadcasts’) [Fig. 4: ‘115’; para. 0049] based on the determined user's preference data or historical data.
Dow does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine preference data or historical data for the user based on one or more previous listening activities for the user; and generate the recommendation based on the determined user's preference data or historical data.
However in the same field of endeavor Gutta discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine preference data or historical data [para. 0015, 0023: ‘an exemplary listening history 300 that is maintained by a decision tree television recommender’] for the user based on one or more previous listening activities for the user; and generate the recommendation [para. 0015, 0023: ‘an exemplary listening history 300 that is maintained by a decision tree television recommender’] based on the determined user's preference data or historical data.
Dow, Odell and Gutta are combinable because they are from the same field of data broadcast system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Dow, Odell and Gutta as motivation to monitor the user’s behavior in order to derive the user’s preferences under various environment conditions [Gutta: para. 0004, 0007].
Regarding claim 6, Dow in view of Odell meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Dow does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein generating the recommendation comprises generating a recommendation for second audio content broadcast by a second radio station based on program information related to the first radio station that the user accessed during the detected user listening activity.
However in the same field of endeavor Gutta discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein generating the recommendation comprises generating a recommendation for second audio content broadcast by a second radio station [para. 0068-0070, 0091: ‘the server can select a second radio station … The selection can be based on whether attributes (e.g.., a genre) of the second radio station match at least a portion of the content metadata’; ‘identifying radio stations that are likely of interest to the user’] based on program information [para. 0016-0017, 0019-0021, 0027-0028: ‘to generate one or more program recommendation(s) 150 indicating audio programs of interest to a user’ ] related to the first radio station that the user accessed during the detected user listening activity.
Dow, Odell and Gutta are combinable because they are from the same field of data broadcast system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Dow, Odell and Gutta as motivation to monitor the user’s behavior in order to derive the user’s preferences under various environment conditions [Gutta: para. 0004, 0007].
Regarding claim 14, the corresponding method in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 4, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 16, the corresponding method in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 6, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Claims 5, 7, 9, 15, 17 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow in view of Odell in further view of Anzures et al. (“Anzures”) [US 2010/0291861 A1]
Regarding claim 5, Dow in view of Odell meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Dow does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein generating the recommendation comprises generating a recommendation for a second radio station based on the first radio station that the user accessed during the detected user listening activity.
However in the same field of endeavor Anzures discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein generating the recommendation comprises generating a recommendation for a second radio station based on the first radio station [Fig. 5A: ‘502’; ‘506’; para. 0068-0070, 0091: ‘the server can select a second radio station … The selection can be based on whether attributes (e.g.., a genre) of the second radio station match at least a portion of the content metadata’; ‘identifying radio stations that are likely of interest to the user’] that the user accessed during the detected user listening activity that the user accessed during the detected user listening activity.
Dow, Odell and Anzures are combinable because they are from the same field of data broadcast system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Dow, Odell and Anzures as motivation to identifying radio stations that are likely of interest to the user’ [Anzures: para. 0091].
Regarding claim 7, Dow in view of Odell meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Dow does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein generating the recommendation comprises generating a recommendation for a second radio station from the determined one or more radio stations receivable by the user device based on the identified information related to the first audio content broadcast by the first radio station during the detected user listening activity.
However in the same field of endeavor Anzures discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein generating the recommendation comprises generating a recommendation for a second radio station [Fig. 5A: ‘502’; ‘506’; para. 0068-0070, 0091: ‘the server can select a second radio station … The selection can be based on whether attributes (e.g.., a genre) of the second radio station match at least a portion of the content metadata’; ‘identifying radio stations that are likely of interest to the user’] from the determined one or more radio stations receivable by the user device based on the identified information [para. 0068-0070, 0091: ‘the server can select a second radio station … The selection can be based on whether attributes (e.g.., a genre) of the second radio station match at least a portion of the content metadata’; ‘identifying radio stations that are likely of interest to the user’] related to the first audio content broadcast by the first radio station during the detected user listening activity.
Dow, Gutta and Anzures are combinable because they are from the same field of data broadcast system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Dow, Gutta and Anzures as motivation to identifying radio stations that are likely of interest to the user’ [Anzures: para. 0091].
Regarding claim 9, Dow in view of Odell meets the claim limitations as follows:
Dow does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive feedback on the generated recommendation and update the recommendation based on the received feedback using the user device.
However in the same field of endeavor Anzures discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive feedback (i.e. ‘synchronized the stored catalog 746 upon request’) [para. 0084, 0089: ‘update the currently playing item database 742] on the generated recommendation and update the recommendation based on the received feedback using the user device.
Dow, Odell and Anzures are combinable because they are from the same field of data broadcast system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Dow, Odell and Anzures as motivation to identifying radio stations that are likely of interest to the user’ [Anzures: para. 0091].
Regarding claim 15, the corresponding method in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 5, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 17, the corresponding method in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 7, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 19, the corresponding method in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 9, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Claims 8 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow in view of Odell in further view of Story, Jr. et al. (“Story”) [US 9,420,319 B1]
Regarding claim 8, Dow in view of Odell meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Dow does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive a request from the user for a customized recommendation using the user device.
However in the same field of endeavor Story discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive a request from the user [col. 7, ll. 5-15: ‘to acquire the user profile information and the characteristics information in response a request from the user’; col. 8: ‘The request can include … identification of the digital content being consumed at the time of the request’] for a customized recommendation using the user device.
Dow, Odell and Story are combinable because they are from the same field of data broadcast system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Dow, Odell and Story as motivation to request a customized recommendation for products and services [Story: col. 1, ll. 35-45].
Regarding claim 18, the corresponding method in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 8, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow in view of Odell in further view of Yai et al. (“Yai”) [US 2009/0100470 A1]
Regarding claim 10, Dow in view of Odell meets the claim limitations as follows:
Dow does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The system of claim 1, wherein the recommendation is generated specific to a time, day, or week based on available programs of the one or more radio stations receivable by the user device.
However in the same field of endeavor Yai discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the recommendation is generated specific to a time, day, or week based on available programs of the one or more radio stations receivable by the user device [Figs. 4-9; para. 0009: ‘a list of information such as a schedule date .., a name …, a genre, and a content about one or more recommended programs determined to be matching with the user’s preference and extracted’].
Dow, Odell and Yai are combinable because they are from the same field of data broadcast system.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Dow, Odell and Yai as motivation to display a list of information as a general practice to watch and listen to a TV program [Yai: para. 0005-0009].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights