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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/05/2026. Claims 1-11 and 13 are presently pending. Claim 12 has been canceled by the Applicant.
Claim 13, as amended, obviates rejection under 35 USC § 101 raised in the preceding Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been fully considered:
With respect to arguments relating to the “sensor” (independent claims 1 and 11, and their dependent claims), arguments are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
With respect to the dependent claim 2, Applicant additionally argues:
Claim 2 presents “…[a] simple, deterministic sequence …, which involves iterating through a pre-defined priority table until a selection is made or a default genre is reached” (Remarks: Page 8, last paragraph through Page 9, 1st paragraph).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., simplicity, deterministic ]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations perceived by the Applicant and/or from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, Olivera discloses providing recommended programs in various orders (¶ [64]) while disclosing user selection options such as default selections (¶ [102]). Olivera is not explicit on the selection operational sequence of the user interface. One reason for this may be the notoriously well-known functions of the user interface and empowering of the users to select from a sequence of options. Be that as it may, and for the sake of completeness for future appeals, Oliveira is not explicit on:
pointing, in said priority table, to said genre classified first according to said order of priority for said emotional state detected, and
detecting a selection by the user and, if the user does not select a programme corresponding to said first genre pointed to, pointing to the following genre in the priority table until the user selects a programme in said genre pointed to or until said genre pointed to is said default genre.
However, Katta discloses a user interface method and apparatus for broadcast receivers, (e.g. Fig. 22) where the interface provides for:
pointing, in said priority table, to said selection [genre] classified first according to said order of priority for said [emotional] state detected (S401 and corresponding description. Further see: Col. 18, lines 45-58; Col. 25, lines 44-57), and
detecting a selection by the user and, if the user does not select a programme corresponding to said first selection [genre] pointed to, pointing to the following selection [genre] in the priority table until the user selects a programme in said selection [genre] pointed to (S401, S405, S406, S403, S404 and corresponding description. Further see: Col. 18, lines 45-58; Col. 25, lines 44-57) or until said genre pointed to is said default genre (S405, S408, S409 and corresponding description. Further see: Col. 18, lines 45-58; Col. 25, lines 44-57). See Col. 30, lines 18-60.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Oliveira with Katta’s teachings in order to provide notoriously well-known functionality of the user interface and empowering of the users to select from a sequence of options and a default should they not!
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Oliveira with Katta’s teachings in order to provide notoriously well-known functionality of the user interface and empowering of the users to select from a sequence of options and a default should they not!
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliveira, USPGPUB 2015/0249865 (hereinafter “Oliveira”), in view of Biradar et al., USPGPUB 2020/0139077 (hereinafter “Biradar”).
Regarding claim 1, Oliveira discloses a method for recommending a list of at least one audiovisual programme from a catalogue of programmes to at least one user oriented to an audiovisual set-top box and display means (As shown in Figs 1-2, 12-13, and 15), said programmes in said catalogue being categorized in genres (Figs. 12-13, and 15), wherein the method comprises the steps performed by said audiovisual set-top box of:
Associating said genres with emotional states (¶¶ [88]-[99];
Detecting a current emotional state of said at least one user (¶ [76]);
performing a sorting of said programmes in said catalogue taking account at least of said emotional state detected and of said genres associated with said emotional state detected (¶ [99]);
displaying a list of at least one audiovisual programme taking account of said sorting of said programmes in said catalogue of programmes (¶ [77]);
wherein said step of associating said genres with said emotional states comprises:
- either a substep of using a priority table wherein, for each of said emotional states, said genres are classified in an order of priority, said classification taking account at least of a counter of readings of each genre associated with each emotional state (¶¶ [88]-[99]), said priority table furthermore comprising a default genre attributed last according to the order of priority for each of said emotional states (¶ [102]);
- or a substep of using a counting table comprising a counter of readings by the user for each genre associated with an emotional state (¶¶ [39], [50]-[51]).
Oliviera is not explicit in detecting, by at least one sensor, a current emotional state of said at least one user.
However, Biradar discloses a method, system, and computer program product that stores user information received from a plurality of sensor that tracks user activities of a user over a specified time period. The electronic apparatus includes circuitry that detects a baseline emotion of the user based on the user information. The circuitry detects a dominant emotion of the user based on a change in an emotional characteristic of the user and the detected baseline emotion (Abstract, Fig. 1, 106, Fig. 6, 9A, and corresponding descriptions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Oliveira with Biradar’s teachings in order to automate the emotional determination/ selection process for the convenience of the user.
Regarding claim 3, Oliveira discloses wherein said step of displaying said list of at least one audiovisual programme taking account of said sorting of said programmes in said catalogue comprises the sub steps of:
ordering said at least one programme in said list of at least one programme to be displayed, said ordering at least partly taking account of a priority criterion of said at least one programme (¶¶ [64], [85], [99]-[103]); and
displaying said list of at least one programme according to said ordering (¶¶ [64], [85], [99]-[103]). Also see Fig. 15 and corresponding description.
Regarding claim 6, Oliveira discloses wherein said step of implementing a sorting of said programmes in said catalogue taking account at least of said emotional state detected and said genres associated with said emotional state detected comprises a substep of:
ranking the programmes in a list of programmes offered, wherein each programme has a predetermined score, by decreasing order of said counter associated with said genre and with said emotional state detected (Figs. 4, 5, ¶¶ [50], [54], [58]); then
ranking said programmes in said list of programmes having the same genre by decreasing order of the predetermined score (Figs. 4, 5, ¶¶ [50], [54], [58]).
Regarding claim 9, Oliveira discloses wherein, when said audiovisual set-top box detects at least two users, the method comprises:
a step of determining the main user on the basis of at least one predetermined criterion, said substep of using a priority table or a counting table being performed using said priority table or said counting table associated with said main user determined (¶¶ [48]-[50]; Exemplary Figs. 4 and 6 and corresponding descriptions); or
a step of combining said priority or counting tables of each of said users detected, said substep of using a priority table or a counting table being performed using the priority table or counting table resulting from this combination (¶ [85]).
Regarding claim 10, Oliveira discloses a step of triggering said method:
when said audiovisual set-top box is switched on (¶ [48]); or
when at least one user is detected by said audiovisual set-top box (Figs 4 and 6, and corresponding descriptions); or
when a programme is selected/sought by said at least one user (Figs. 7 and 8, and corresponding descriptions).
The system of claim 11, effectuating the method of claim 1, is rejected by the same analysis.
The computer program of claim 13, as recited, effectuating the method of claim 1, is rejected by the same analysis.
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.
Claims 2, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliveira, in view of Biradar, further in view of Katta et al., USPN 6,353,444 (hereinafter “Katta”).
Regarding claim 2, Oliveira discloses wherein said step of implementing a sorting of said programmes in said catalogue taking account at least of said emotional state detected and said genres associated with said emotional state detected (as analyzed in claim 1). Olivera discloses providing recommended programs in various orders (¶ [64]) while disclosing user selection options such as default selections (¶ [102]). The system of Olivera and Biradar is not explicit on the selection operational sequence of the user interface. One reason for this may be the notoriously well-known functions of the user interface and empowering of the users to select from a sequence of options. Be that as it may, and for the sake of completeness for future appeals, Oliveira is not explicit on:
pointing, in said priority table, to said genre classified first according to said order of priority for said emotional state detected, and
detecting a selection by the user and, if the user does not select a programme corresponding to said first genre pointed to, pointing to the following genre in the priority table until the user selects a programme in said genre pointed to or until said genre pointed to is said default genre.
However, Katta discloses a user interface method and apparatus for broadcast receivers, (e.g. Fig. 22) where the interface provides for:
pointing, in said priority table, to said selection [genre] classified first according to said order of priority for said [emotional] state detected (S401 and corresponding description. Further see: Col. 18, lines 45-58; Col. 25, lines 44-57), and
detecting a selection by the user and, if the user does not select a programme corresponding to said first selection [genre] pointed to, pointing to the following selection [genre] in the priority table until the user selects a programme in said selection [genre] pointed to (S401, S405, S406, S403, S404 and corresponding description. Further see: Col. 18, lines 45-58; Col. 25, lines 44-57) or until said genre pointed to is said default genre (S405, S408, S409 and corresponding description. Further see: Col. 18, lines 45-58; Col. 25, lines 44-57). See Col. 30, lines 18-60.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Oliveira and Biradar with Katta’s teachings in order to provide notoriously well-known functionality of the user interface and empowering of the users to select from a sequence of options and a default should they not!
Regarding claim 7, the system of Oliveira, Biradar, and Katta discloses wherein it comprises a step of updating said priority table or said counting table, when said at least one user reads, during at least one predetermined period, one of said recommended programmes, by incrementing a value of said counter associated with said programme read by said at least one user (Katta: Fig. 22, Col. 32, lines 8-39).
Regarding claim 8, the system of Oliveira, Biradar, and Katta discloses wherein each genre comprises at least one subgenre and wherein said priority table and said counting table comprise a counter of readings for each genre and a counter of readings for each subgenre, the step of said priority table and said counting table comprising the sub steps of, when said at least one user reads one of said recommended programmes:
incrementing said counters of the genre and of the subgenre of the programme selected by said at least one user corresponding to said emotional state detected by a first value Katta: Fig. 22, Col. 32, lines 8-39;
incrementing the counters of the other subgenres associated with the genre of the programme selected by said at least one user corresponding to said emotional state detected by a second value (Oliveira: ¶ [85], Katta: Fig. 22, Col. 32, lines 8-39).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliveira, in view of Biradar, Further in view of Stepanov et al., USPN 2014/0298364 (hereinafter “Stepanov”). Stepanov reference was cited in the IDS of 6/18/2024.
Regarding claim 4, the system of Oliveira and Biradra is not explicit in wherein said step of performing a sorting of said programmes in said catalogue taking account at least of said emotional state detected and of said genres associated with said emotional state detected comprises the sub steps of:
calculating a weighting coefficient for each of said genres associated with said emotional state detected;
for each programme included in a list of programmes offered in which each programme has a predetermined score and a genre, calculating a weighted score by multiplying said predetermined score of said programme by said weighting coefficient corresponding to said genre;
ranking said programmes in said list of programmes offered by decreasing order of weighted score.
However, Stepanov discloses a method, system, and computer program product for recommending media based on emotions wherein said step of performing a sorting of said programmes in said catalogue taking account at least of said emotional state detected and of said genres associated with said emotional state detected comprises the sub steps of:
calculating a weighting coefficient for each of said genres associated with said emotional state detected (¶¶ [83]-[86]);
for each programme included in a list of programmes offered in which each programme has a predetermined score and a genre, calculating a weighted score by multiplying said predetermined score of said programme by said weighting coefficient corresponding to said genre (¶¶ [83]-[86]);
ranking said programmes in said list of programmes offered by decreasing order of weighted score (¶¶ [83]-[86]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Oliveira and Biradar with Stepanov’s teachings in order to provide more accurate recommendation based on more dominant factors associated with the users’ profiles (See Stepanov’s ¶ [86] for motivation).
Claim 5 is rejected by the same analysis as claim 4 as the dividing of the counters by maximum value is merely a weighting factor as disclosed by Stepanov!
Conclusions
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.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R MARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-7 ET flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan J Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES R MARANDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights