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 .
Election/Restrictions
NO restrictions warranted at applicant’s time of filing for CONtinuation.
Priority
This application is a continuation and claims domestic priority under 35 USC 120 to non – provisional application # 17/584,487, filed on 01/26/2022, now US PAT 12107850; which further claims domestic priority under 35 USC 120 to continuing non – provisional application # 14/470,530, filed on 08/27/2014, now US PAT 11374924; which further claims domestic priority under 35 USC 120 to continuing non – provisional application # 12/370,426, filed on 02/12/2009, now US PAT 8856908.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/09/2024, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Applicant’s drawings filed on 08/26/2024 have been inspected and is in compliance with MPEP 608.02.
Specification
Applicant’s specification filed on 08/26/2024 has been fully considered, and is in compliance with MPEP 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claim[s] 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim language contains improper grammatic punctuation. See the termination of line 2 of claim 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC USC 112th F
It is in the examiner’s opinion that claim[s] 1 – 32 do not invoke means for or step plus functional claim language under the meaning of the statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
NO rejections warranted at applicant’s time of filing for CONtinuation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
NO rejections warranted at applicant’s time of filing for CONtinuation.
Double Patenting
NO double patenting rejection warranted at applicant’s time of filing for CONtinuation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
NO rejections warranted at applicant’s time of filing for CONtinuation.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or on an international application by another who has fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of section 371(c) of this title before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
The changes made to 35 U.S.C. 102(e) by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002 do not apply when the reference is a U.S. patent resulting directly or indirectly from an international application filed before November 29, 2000. Therefore, the prior art date of the reference is determined under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) prior to the amendment by the AIPA (pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)).
Claim(s) 1 – 32 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being taught by Lawerence – Apfelbaum et al. [US PGPUB # 2009/0210899].
As per claim 1. Lawrence – Apfelbaum does teach a method [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, paragraph: 0004, The present invention relates generally to the field of data and content-based networks. More specifically, the present invention relates in one exemplary aspect to methods and apparatus for delivering programming content along with alternate targeted advertisements (including promotions and other similar types of content) via a cable television network.] comprising:
storing, by a computing device associated with a user [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, Figure # 7a, and paragraph: 0310, In the embodiment presented, the AC subsequently receives one or more viewer-entered preferences and/or a selection of a user profile (with saved viewer preferences) per step 706.], a user profile that comprises:
first data indicating usage information associated with the user [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, paragraph: 0208, lines 12 – 16, The "user input" may also be entirely passive; e.g., selections made by an advertising controller (discussed in greater detail subsequently herein) based on user demographics such as income, geographic location, tuning habits, etc. [i.e. applicant’s first data indicating usage information]]; and
second data that is associated with advertisement selection and that is non-user-identifying [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, Figure # 5, and paragraph: 0256, lines 8 – 16, The AOS is in this embodiment adapted to include a "user profile" option, which, per step 504, the viewer may select. The viewer is then taken to the user profile [i.e. applicant’s…..second data] screen per step 506. The user profile screen is adapted to permit a user to enter a user name per step 508. However, it will be appreciated that other methods of recognizing a user may be implemented, such as an image, a password, or other identifier. Moreover, the user can be anonymously identified if desired via their CPE; see the discussion presented subsequently herein regarding preserving subscriber anonymity.];
sending, to a server, the second data [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, Figure # 7a, and paragraph: 0310, In the embodiment presented, the AC subsequently receives one or more viewer-entered preferences and/or a selection of a user profile (with saved viewer preferences) per step 706.[i.e. applicant’s…..second data] ];
receiving a plurality of advertisements based on the second data [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, paragraph: 0258, lines 6 – 10, Next, the advertising controller (AC) program utilizes the viewer's user profile [i.e. applicant’s…..second data] to generate targeted advertisements in an updated playlist per step 520. It is at this point that the viewer may determine whether to select any of the advertisements from the playlist for viewing, or subsequent delivery or select the option not to view any of the commercials.];
selecting, by the computing device based on the first data, an advertisement from the plurality of advertisements [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, Figure # 7b, paragraph: 0311, At step 708, the AC next matches the one or more viewer-entered preferences with available advertisements, such as by performing a search of the metadata associated with those advertisements. Finally, an updated viewer-centric playlist of only those advertisements which match the viewer-entered preferences are displayed per step 710.]; and
causing output of the advertisement [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, Figure # 7b, paragraph: 0311, At step 708, the AC next matches the one or more viewer-entered preferences with available advertisements, such as by performing a search of the metadata associated with those advertisements. Finally, an updated viewer-centric playlist of only those advertisements which match the viewer-entered preferences are displayed per step 710. ].
As per claim 2. Lawrence – Apfelbaum does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first data further comprises external profile data, for the user, from an external source [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, Figure # 7a, and paragraph: 0310, In the embodiment presented, the AC subsequently receives one or more viewer-entered preferences and/or a selection of a user profile (with saved viewer preferences) per step 706.].
As per claim 3. Lawrence – Apfelbaum does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first data further comprises one or more of:
an identifier of the computing device;
one or more identifiers of one or more devices associated with a premises of the computing device; or
an identifier of one or more users of the device [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, Figure # 5, and paragraph: 0256, lines 10 – 14, The viewer is then taken to the user profile screen per step 506. The user profile screen is adapted to permit a user to enter a user name per step 508. However, it will be appreciated that other methods of recognizing a user may be implemented, such as an image, a password, or other identifier.].
As per claim 4. Lawrence – Apfelbaum does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the usage information comprises one or more of:
an activation history of the computing device;
one or more services accessed via the computing device; or
content viewed via the computing device [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, paragraph: 0208, lines 12 – 16, The "user input" may also be entirely passive; e.g., selections made by an advertising controller (discussed in greater detail subsequently herein) based on user demographics such as income, geographic location, tuning habits, etc.].
As per claim 5. Lawrence – Apfelbaum does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the storing the first data is based on a selection of an option to enable collection of the first data [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, Figure # 7a, and paragraph: 0310, lines 6 – 10, In the embodiment presented, the AC subsequently receives one or more viewer-entered preferences and/or a selection of a user profile (with saved viewer preferences) per step 706.].
As per claim 6. Lawrence – Apfelbaum does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the second data does not comprise the usage information [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, paragraph: 0310, However, it will be appreciated that in other embodiments, no viewer preferences are received, or alternatively the viewer preferences are received prior to playlist generation; e.g., as part of a subscriber sign-up profile, subscriber demographic assessment (e.g., "estimated" preferences), or the like. In that case, the first advertisement playlist displayed in step 704 will be the only list generated.].
As per claim 7. Lawrence – Apfelbaum does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the second data comprises one or more of:
financial data associated with the user;
location data associated with the user [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, paragraph: 0208, lines 12 – 16, The "user input" may also be entirely passive; e.g., selections made by an advertising controller (discussed in greater detail subsequently herein) based on user demographics such as income, geographic location, tuning habits, etc.];
demographic data associated with the user [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, paragraph: 0208, lines 12 – 16, The "user input" may also be entirely passive; e.g., selections made by an advertising controller (discussed in greater detail subsequently herein) based on user demographics such as income, geographic location, tuning habits, etc.]; or
one or more services associated with the user.
As per claim 8. Lawrence – Apfelbaum does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the sending the second data comprises sending the second data without the first data [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, paragraph: 0310, However, it will be appreciated that in other embodiments, no viewer preferences are received, or alternatively the viewer preferences are received prior to playlist generation; e.g., as part of a subscriber sign-up profile, subscriber demographic assessment (e.g., "estimated" preferences), or the like. In that case, the first advertisement playlist displayed in step 704 will be the only list generated.].
As per claim 9. Lawrence – Apfelbaum does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the server comprises an advertisement server [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, Figure # 7a, paragraph: 0310, Per step 702, the AC requests from a designated source (e.g., headend or hub entity such as an advertising server, third party website, local advertisement repository stored on a DVR, etc.) a list of available advertisements].
As per method claim 10 that includes the same or similar subject matter as method claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 11. Lawrence – Apfelbaum does teach the method of claim 10, wherein the plurality of advertisements are tagged with one or more targeting parameters [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, paragraph: 0054, In another variant, the act of selecting comprises: assessing metadata [i.e. applicant’s…tagged with one or more targeting parameters] associated with at least one of the available advertisements; and evaluating the metadata with respect to user descriptive information. The user descriptive information comprises e.g., information enabling determination of whether a user belongs to a particular demographic or psychographic.], and wherein the selecting is further based on the one or more targeting parameters [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, paragraph: 0055, In still another variant, the method further comprises: enabling a user to enter one or more advertisement selection criteria; comparing metadata associated with at least one of the available advertisements to the criteria; and selecting at least a subset of the available advertisements based at least in part on the act of comparing.].
As per claim 12. Lawrence – Apfelbaum does teach the method of claim 10, further comprising:
receiving one or more advertisement selection criteria [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, paragraph: 0055, In still another variant, the method further comprises: enabling a user to enter one or more advertisement selection criteria; comparing metadata associated with at least one of the available advertisements to the criteria; and selecting at least a subset of the available advertisements based at least in part on the act of comparing.]; and
determining, based on the one or more advertisement selection criteria, the data [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, paragraph: 0055, In still another variant, the method further comprises: enabling a user to enter one or more advertisement selection criteria; comparing metadata associated with at least one of the available advertisements to the criteria; and selecting at least a subset of the available advertisements based at least in part on the act of comparing.].
As per claim 13. Lawrence – Apfelbaum does teach the method of claim 10, wherein the data comprises one or more tokens, associated with one or more of the plurality of advertisements, based on information about a user associated with the computing device [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, paragraph: 0054, In another variant, the act of selecting comprises: assessing metadata [i.e. applicant’s tokens] associated with at least one of the available advertisements; and evaluating the metadata with respect to user descriptive information. The user descriptive information comprises e.g., information enabling determination of whether a user belongs to a particular demographic or psychographic.].
As per claim 14. Lawrence – Apfelbaum does teach the method of claim 10, wherein the usage information indicates one or more of:
one or more services accessed by the computing device;
one or more other computing devices associated with a user of the computing device;
transaction information for services associated with the user of the computing device; or
content output by one or more computing devices associated with a user of the computing device [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, paragraph: 0208, lines 12 – 16, The "user input" may also be entirely passive; e.g., selections made by an advertising controller (discussed in greater detail subsequently herein) based on user demographics such as income, geographic location, tuning habits, etc.].
As per claim 15. Lawrence – Apfelbaum does teach the method of claim 10, further comprising collecting the usage information based on an enablement setting for data collection [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, paragraph: 0068, In yet another variant, the computer program is adapted to: provide a user interface, the interface adapted to enable a user to enter user information; save the user-entered preference information as a user profile; evaluate metadata regarding the available advertisements; and generate the list of available advertisements based at least in part on the user information in the user profile. For example, the user information might comprise at least one of: (i) name; (ii) age; (iii) gender; (iv) marital status; (v) household income; (vi) hobbies; (vii) zip code; and (viii) occupation.].
As per claim 16. Lawrence – Apfelbaum does teach the method of claim 10, wherein the sending the data is based on user input to enable sharing the data [Lawrence – Apfelbaum, paragraph: 0067, In an additional variant, the program is adapted to: enable a user to enter one or more advertisement criteria; evaluate metadata associated with the list of available advertisements; and generate a second list of available advertisements that at least partly correlate with one or more of the criteria.].
As per apparatus claim 17 that includes all the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
***The examiner notes that applicant’s recited: “one or more processors,” “memory storing instructions,” is taught by Lawrence – Apfelbaum at paragraphs: 0074, 0092 & 0159.
As per apparatus claim 18 that includes all the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
As per apparatus claim 19 that includes all the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
As per apparatus claim 20 that includes all the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
As per apparatus claim 21 that includes all the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
As per apparatus claim 22 that includes all the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
As per apparatus claim 23 that includes all the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
As per apparatus claim 24 that includes all the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 8, and is similarly rejected.
As per apparatus claim 25 that includes all the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 9, and is similarly rejected.
As per apparatus claim 26 that includes all the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 10, and is similarly rejected.
***The examiner notes that applicant’s recited: “one or more processors,” “memory storing instructions,” is taught by Lawrence – Apfelbaum at paragraphs: 0074, 0092 & 0159.
As per apparatus claim 27 that includes all the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 11, and is similarly rejected.
As per apparatus claim 28 that includes all the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 12, and is similarly rejected.
As per apparatus claim 29 that includes all the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 13, and is similarly rejected.
As per apparatus claim 30 that includes all the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 14, and is similarly rejected.
As per apparatus claim 31 that includes all the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 15, and is similarly rejected.
As per apparatus claim 32 that includes all the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 16, and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matz et al. [US PGPUB # 2012/0124090], who generally does teach content tag associated with a content item is received and compared to a profile tag. When no match occurs, and the user profile contains no more profile tags, then another content tag is retrieved and successively compared to the profile tags until a match occurs. A score is incremented when the match occurs, and the score is compared to a threshold value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANT SHAIFER - HARRIMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7910. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9am to 5pm.
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, Kambiz Zand can be reached at 571- 272- 3811. 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.
/DANT B SHAIFER HARRIMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434