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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schaffer et al. (Patent No US 7,937,725). Hereinafter, referenced as Schaffer.
Regarding claim 1, Schaffer discloses a system for media presentation management, the system comprising:
one or more memories (Figure 4);
and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories (Figure 4), configured to:
obtain express preference information (e.g. Explicit Profile 315) that indicates one or more express user preferences associated with media presentation on a user device (Col. 7 lines 27-41 figure 7; an explicit profile 315 is formed by having a user interact with a UI 317 to indicate preferences);
obtain behavior information (e.g. User behavior 405) that indicates one or more user interactions with at least first media (e.g. viewed show) presented on the user device (Col. 6 lines 59-67, col. 7 lines 1-26 figure 6; collect user viewing history 310 based on obtained user behaviors 405);
determine, based on the express preference information (e.g. Explicit Profile 315) and based on the behavior information (e.g. User behavior 405), derived preference information (e.g. Implicit profile 330) that indicates one or more derived user preferences associated with media presentation on the user device (Col. 6 lines 59-67, col. 7 lines 1-26 figure 6; generate implicit profile 330 based on user viewing history 310 related to shows and scores, i.e. viewing recommended shows);
generate a media presentation profile that indicates at least some of the express preference information and at least some of the derived preference information (Col. 8 lines 18-38 figure 9; combined recommender 365 generates recommendation 335 based on explicit profile 315 and implicit profile 330);
send, to the user device, the media presentation profile for presentation on the user device in association with the first media (Col. 8 lines 18-38 figure 9; recommendations 335 shown to the viewer);
receive, from the user device and based on sending the media presentation profile, preference modification information (e.g. feedback profile 325) that indicates a modification to at least one of the one or more express user preferences or at least one of the one or more derived user preferences (Col. 8 lines 18-38 figure 9; present feedback user interface 300 after a user just finished watching a show, wherein if there were a disparity the user could request to see the rules that generated that result and selectively make corrections);
update, based on the preference modification information, at least one of the express preference information or the derived preference information (Col. 6 lines 16-58 figure 9; receive user feedback to make corrections and modify recommendation algorithm);
determine, based on the updated at least one of the express preference information or the derived preference information, media recommendation information that identifies at least second media (Col. 8 lines 18-38 figure 9; combined recommender 365 generates recommendation 335 based on explicit profile 315, implicit profile 330 and feedback profile 325 on future recommendations, e.g. second content);
and send, to the user device, the media recommendation information for presentation on the user device in association with the first media (Col. 8 lines 18-38 figure 9; recommendations 335 shown to the viewer).
Regarding claim 2, Schaffer discloses the system of claim 1; moreover, Schaffer discloses that the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the user device and based on sending the media recommendation information, media selection information that indicates selection of the second media; and cause the second media to be presented on the user device (Col. 8 lines 18-38 figure 9; combined recommender 365 generates recommendation 335 based on explicit profile 315, implicit profile 330 and feedback profile 325 on future recommendations, e.g. second content, which may be selected by the viewer).
Regarding claim 3, Schaffer discloses the system of claim 2; moreover, Schaffer discloses that the one or more processors, to cause the second media to be presented on the user device, are configured to: obtain the second media from a data structure; and send the second media to the user device (Col. 5 lines 4-25 figure 1; television programs).
Regarding claim 4, Schaffer discloses the system of claim 1; moreover, Schaffer discloses that the one or more processors are further configured to: obtain the express preference information from a data structure (Figure 9; e.g. Explicit profile UI 355); and obtain the behavior information from the data structure (Figure 9; e.g. Feedback UI 300).
Regarding claims 8, Schaffer discloses all the limitations of claim 8; therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claims 9, Schaffer discloses all the limitations of claim 9; therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claims 10, Schaffer discloses all the limitations of claim 10; therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claims 11, Schaffer discloses all the limitations of claim 11; therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 2.
Regarding claims 13, Schaffer discloses all the limitations of claim 13; therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 4.
Regarding claims 15, Schaffer discloses all the limitations of claim 15; therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claims 16, Schaffer discloses all the limitations of claim 16; therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claims 17, Schaffer discloses all the limitations of claim 17; therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claims 18, Schaffer discloses all the limitations of claim 18; therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 2.
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 5, 6, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer in view of Siddiq et al. (Pub No US 2019/0149879). Hereinafter, referenced as Siddiq.
Regarding claim 5, Schaffer discloses the system of claim 1; moreover, Schaffer discloses sending the media presentation profile (Col. 8 lines 1-38 figure 9; show list of recommendations 335).
However, it is noted that Schaffer is silent to explicitly disclose sending the media presentation profile enables contemporaneous presentation, on the user device, of at least some of the first media and at least some of the media presentation profile.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Siddiq discloses sending the media presentation profile enables contemporaneous presentation, on the user device, of at least some of the first media and at least some of the media presentation profile (Paragraph [0070]; content recommendation 116 may be presented during presentation of the current media content).
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 Schaffer by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Siddiq, for the predictable result of implementing a design choice as to when it is the best time to present content recommendations and engage the viewer.
Regarding claim 6, Schaffer discloses the system of claim 1; moreover, Schaffer discloses that sending the media presentation profile enables presentation, on the user device, of: at least some of the first media at a first time (Col. 8 lines 1-38 figure 9; show list of recommendations 335 and selecting a recommended content to view).
However, it is noted that Schaffer is silent to explicitly disclose presentation of at least some of the media presentation profile at a second time that occurs after the first time.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Siddiq discloses presentation of at least some of the media presentation profile at a second time that occurs after the first time (Paragraph [0070]; content recommendation 116 may be presented after presentation of the current media content is concluded).
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 Schaffer by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Siddiq, for the predictable result of implementing a design choice as to when it is the best time to present content recommendations and engage the viewer.
Regarding claims 14, Schaffer and Siddiq disclose all the limitations of claim 14; therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 6.
Regarding claims 19, Schaffer and Siddiq disclose all the limitations of claim 19; therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 5.
Regarding claims 20, Schaffer and Siddiq disclose all the limitations of claim 20; therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 6.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaffer in view of Yasir (Pub No US 2023/0252068). Hereinafter, referenced as Yasir.
Regarding claim 7, Schaffer discloses the system of claim 1; moreover, Schaffer discloses the one or more processors, to determine the media recommendation information (Col. 8 lines 1-38 figure 9; show list of recommendations 335).
However, it is noted that Schaffer is silent to explicitly disclose process, using at least one machine learning model technique, the updated at least one of the express preference information or the derived preference information to determine the media recommendation information.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Yasir discloses process, using at least one machine learning model technique, the updated at least one of the express preference information or the derived preference information to determine the media recommendation information (Paragraph [0033] figure 3; using a machine learning models to train and learn user preferences).
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 Schaffer by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Yasir, for the predictable result of implementing a training process that are known and effective in determining content preferences in a fast and efficient manner.
Regarding claims 12, Schaffer and Yasir disclose all the limitations of claim 12; therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm EST..
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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424