DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19, 20, 22-23 and 25-26 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground(s) of rejection discussed below. The amendments to the claims necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection. This office action is non-Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19, 20, 22-23 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORRIS (2009/0064229) in view of REISMAN (2015/0135206) and further in view of PECKOVER (9,984,156).
As to claims 1, 3-5 and 7-8, MORRIS discloses recommendation from stochastic analysis and further discloses a method comprising:
In response to launching a television application (IPTV guide or EPG application) on a computing device, displaying, media content recommendations in a first user interface of the television application using a stateful recommendation process based on at least one known preference of a user of the TV application; in response to receiving a request for media content not based on at least one known preference of the user, initiating, by the television application, a stateless recommendation process, the stateless recommendation process (figs.1-5, [0002-0006], [0013-0031] and [0039-0051); IPTV guide or EPG application, recommendations from stochastic analysis, where the choice includes plurality of movies having disparate identifying criteria, such as different categories; where the analysis predicts similarity. Comprising:
generating, the media content suggestions; displaying the media content suggestions in the user interface of the television application; receiving a selection of at least one media content item associated with a respective media content suggestion; and updating, the media content suggestions based on the at least one media content item and in response to receiving an indication redisplaying the media content recommendation in the first user interface of the TV application using the stateful recommendation process ([0002-0006], [0013-0031] and [0039-0051), IPTV guide or EPG application, recommendations from stochastic analysis, where the choice includes plurality of movies having disparate identifying criteria, such as different categories; where the analysis predicts similarity, wherein the updating the media content suggestions adding one or more content items to the media content suggestions include media content items semantically similar to the at least one media content item, wherein the media content suggestions include media content items associated with different genres and wherein updating the media content suggestions adding one or more content items to the media content suggestions that are associated with the at least one genre ([0002-0006], [0013-0031] and [0039-0051), IPTV guide or EPG application, recommendations from stochastic analysis, where the choice includes plurality of movies having disparate identifying criteria, such as different categories; where the analysis predicts similarity; viewer selection of one movie and generating of other choices; subsequent to redisplaying the media content recommendations in the first user interface of the television application using the stateful recommendation process, receiving an indication of a selection of a media content item associated with a respective media content recommendation of the media content recommendations; and playing, by the television application, the media content item on the computing device and wherein receiving the request for the media content suggestions not based on the at least one known preference of the user is based on a mood of the user([0002-0006], [0013-0031] and [0039-0051), IPTV guide or EPG application, recommendations from stochastic analysis, where the choice includes plurality of movies having disparate identifying criteria, such as different categories; where the analysis predicts similarity; viewer selection of one movie and generating of other choices
MORRIS discloses recommendations from stochastic analysis, where the choice includes plurality of movies having disparate identifying criteria, such as different categories; where the analysis predicts similarity, BUT appears silent in response to receiving an indication to end the stateless recommendation process, the terminating (comprising not storing any selections) deleting of media content items received by the stateless recommendation process on the computing device; and redisplaying the media content recommendations in the first user interface of the television application using the stateful recommendation process, receiving an indication of a selection of a media content item associated with a respective media content recommendation of the media content recommendations; and playing, by the television application, the media content item on the computing device and wherein receiving the request for media content suggestions not based on the at least one known preference of the user is based on a mood of the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, REISMAN discloses stateless recommendation system and further discloses terminating, by the television application, the stateless recommendation process, the terminating comprising not storing any selections received by the stateless recommendation process; subsequent to terminating the stateless recommendation process, redisplaying the media content recommendations in the user interface of the television application; receiving an indication of a selection of a media content item associated with a respective media content recommendation of the media content recommendations; and playing, by the television application, the media content item on the computing device and wherein receiving the request for media content suggestions not based on the at least one known preference of the user is based on a mood of the user (figs.1-10, Abstract, [0129-0132], [0208-0210] and [0371-0379].
Hence it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of REISMAN into the system of MORRIS to terminating the result for efficiently processing of the stateless recommendation and further generate recommendation based on the mood of the user accordingly.
MORRIS as modified by REISMAN terminates the recommendation process, delete content items and redisplays content items, BUT appear silent as to in response to receiving and indication to end a stateless recommendation process and where the terminating comprising not storing any selections
However, in the same field of endeavor, PECKOVER discloses systems and method for electronically searching for an item and further discloses where to in response to receiving and indication to end a stateless recommendation process and where the terminating comprising not storing any selections (figs.1-33, Abstract, Col.12, line 63-Col.13, line 58, Col.15, lines 9-52 and Col.20, lines 1-64). search result is halted after a specific number of matches have been found.
Hence it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of PECKOVER into the system of MORRIS as modified by REISMAN to efficiently manage the device storage.
As to claims 9, 11-13 and 16-17, the claimed “A non-transitory…” is composed of the same structural elements that were discussed with respect to claims 1, 3-5 and 7-8.
As to claims 17, 19-20 and 22-23 the claimed “A system comprising…” is composed of the same structural elements that were discussed with respect to 1, 3-5 and 7-8.
As to claims 25-26, MORRIS as modified above, appear silent as to displaying the updated media content suggestions in a third user interface of the television application, the third user interface including a row of recommended media content items of the updated media content suggestions and wherein updating the media content suggestions based on the at least one media content item is responsive to receiving a selection of a continue button included in the second user interface; and wherein the instructions when executed by the at least one processor further cause the system to display the updated media content suggestions in a third user interface of the television application, the third user interface including a row of recommended media content items of the updated media content suggestions
However, in the same field of endeavor, REISMAN discloses further discloses displaying the updated media content suggestions in a third user interface of the television application, the third user interface including a row of recommended media content items of the updated media content suggestions and wherein updating the media content suggestions based on the at least one media content item is responsive to receiving a selection of a continue button included in the second user interface; and wherein the instructions when executed by the at least one processor further cause the system to display the updated media content suggestions in a third user interface of the television application, the third user interface including a row of recommended media content items of the updated media content suggestions (figs.1+, [0575-0578] and [0811-0815]), updates or result are displayed in one or more screens of the displayed interface.
Hence it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of REISMAN into the system of MORRIS as modified to provide additional enhancement to the display interface as desired.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNAN Q SHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7355. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, BRUCKART BENJAMIN 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.
/ANNAN Q SHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
ANNAN SHANG
Prosecution Insights