DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The 112b rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment. Applicant’s arguments regarding the 102 rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new rejections below, which were necessitated by amendment.
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 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., US 9,992,523 in view of Bates et al., US 2023/0007327.
Claims 1 and 8 and 15. Chen teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
A coupled memory and processor to implement instructions [Fig. 7, col. 15] for:
receiving a first set of content items for potential acquisition [candidate set, Figs. 2-4, cols. 3-4, 51-7];
simulating, by at least one computer processor, an impact to a second set of content items when adding a potential subset of content items of the first set of content items to the second set of content items [diversity and relevance impact of candidate items to the recommended set are recursively calculated (simulated), Fig. 2-4, col. 4, 1-54; cols. 10-11, ll. 62-42]; and
selecting for acquisition a recommended subset of content items selected from the first set of content items based on at least one of an expected streaming time for the potential subset of content items or an expected reach for the potential subset of content items [set of recommendations is generated, including the candidates of subset Y that maximizes relevance (i.e. reach). Reach can be reasonably construed to mean the likelihood of a user selecting a particular content item, which in Chen is termed “relevance,” Figs. 4, 5, col. 4, 1-54; cols. 10-11, ll. 62-42; col. 11, 45-56].
Chen is silent on acquiring media items based on a budget constraint. Bates teaches a system that selects for acquisition a recommended subset of content items selected from the first set of content items based on a budget constraint [based on customer budget, services are selected/subscribed (i.e. a subset of content is acquired), paras. 23, 24, 59, 65, 68, 141-143].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate Bates, adding content subsets to the available content based on the cost of acquisition to stay within a set budget. This prevents overspending by the user (via the guide provider) while providing access to the content most desired by the viewer/subscriber.
2 and 9 and 16. Chen teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the impact is based on an impact function value that is estimated for the potential subset of content items [Fig. 3 shows a relevancy (impact) function is maximized to select a subset of recommendations, Figs. 2-4, col. 4, 1-54; cols. 10-11, ll. 62-42].
5 and 12 and 19. Chen teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the second set of content items are one or more content items that are currently available to the content recommendation system [cols. 13-14, ll. 20-20].
Claim 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Bates as cited above in view of Martin et al., US 2009/0222392.
3 (from 2) and 10 and 17. Chen is silent on estimating based on event log data. Martin teaches a method further comprising: estimating the impact function value based on an impact function and event log data of a content recommendation system for the second set of content items [user taste is determined using playcounts (event log data), Figs. 1-3, paras. 46, 47, 55]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references, using event log data such as Martin’s playcounts as a reliable indicator of a particular user’s taste since the users themselves generate the data by actually viewing content.
4 and 11 and 18. Martin teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the event log data includes data about a viewing history of the second set of content items by a group of users over a period of time [e.g. views in a recent period of time are included, paras. 55, 56; also note that a period of time is inherent to any past viewing history; Figs. 1, 2, paras. 46, 47, 55].
6 and 13 and 20. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein estimating the impact function comprises:
determining, for each user of a community of users that can access the content recommendation system, a respective probability for display to the user each content item of the potential subset of content items using the content recommendation system [playcounts are a proxy for user preference or display probability, Figs. 1-3, paras. 46, 47, 55];
determining a respective user-specific impact function value for each user based on the respective probability for display for each content item [recommendations are generated for each user based on respective tastes]; and
determining the impact function value for the potential subset of content items by aggregating the respective user-specific impact function value determined for each user of the community of users [aggregator 312, Fig. 3, paras. 58, 79].
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Bates as cited above in view of Lin et al., US 2015/0347416.
7 (from 1) and 14. Chen is silent on targeting recommendations based on demographics. Lin teaches as system further comprising:
estimating an impact function value associated with a user demographics bucket for the recommended subset of content items [preference calculation (analogous to impact function) is made based on demographics, paras. 61, 62]; and
determining to distribute the recommended subset of content items to users of the user demographics bucket [recommended content is distributed, paras. 61-63].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lin, basing the recommendations on demographics in order to target particular viewers or groups when viewing history is not available. Demographics can predict preferences based on overall audience data rather than relying on individual viewing history.
The above references are silent on distribution of content after purchase. Official notice is taken that it was conventional and well-known in the content distribution art to require a subscription or purchase of content individually or per subscription in order to receive content from a provider (i.e. content is only distributed after purchase). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to distribute recommended items only after purchase, in order to obtain revenue in the content distribution business model.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights