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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 03/17/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 12, 14-20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund et al. (hereinafter ‘Freund’, Patent No. 10,394,408) in view of Thomas et al. (hereinafter ‘Thomas’, Patent No. 9,509,798).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20, Freund teaches an electronic device (client 118, Fig. 1; col. 5 line 66 to col. 6 line 15 or Recommendation system 102, that recommends content for presentation on client 118, col. 4 lines 3-28) (with corresponding method and non-transitory computer readable storage medium) comprising:
at least one processing unit (710, Fig. 7 for client 118, col. 18 line 65 to col. 19 line 3 or 110, Fig. 1 for recommendation system 102, col. 4 lines 3-8); and
at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions for execution by the at least one processing unit (712, Fig. 7 for client 118, col. 18 line 65 to col. 19 line 3 or memory 112, Fig. 1 for recommending system 102, col. 4 lines 3-8), the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing unit, cause the device to perform acts comprising:
presenting, in a content push page (200 or 300, Figs. 2 and 3, where recommended content is presented automatically upon the user enters/refreshes the homepage/interface, col. 7 lines 1-27), a first interface element associated with a recommended content collection (220, Figs. 2 and 3, col. 12 lines 61-67; or 408, Figs. 4), the content collection being created by a first user (the recommendation list is created based on explicit/inferred user’s preferences, col. 3 lines 6-19; col. 4 lines 9-57; col. 14 lines 5 to 26) and comprising a content item posted by at least one second user (recommended content and/or channels are posted by other users or sources, 218, Fig. 3; i.e. ‘By Donna K.’); and
presenting, in the first interface element, information related to the content collection and at least one content item in the content collection (multiple content items are listed in the collected list of recommended videos with corresponding identifying information, 220, Figs. 2 and 3; 402/408, Fig. 8; col. 7 lines 28-49).
On the other hand, Freund does not explicitly teach
wherein the information related to the content collection comprises interaction information between a plurality of users and the content collection, and the interaction information indicates at least one of: a number of times that the content collection is viewed, a number of times that the content collection is followed, a number of times that the content collection is liked, or a number of times that the content collection is forwarded.
However, in an analogous art, Thomas teaches a system that recommends internet content to users through a home page. The content can be grouped in composite channels, that could contain multiple content channels and videos created by different users (Fig. 21; col. 40 line 28 to col. 29 line 23). Thomas teaches that the composite channels can include channel subscription details, including channel statistics. The statistics can include a number of people who have subscribed to the composite channel, aggregate stats across all components channels, number of channels included, etc. (col. 29 lines 13 to 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Freund’s invention with Thomas’ feature of displaying content collection’s interaction information/stats for the benefit of enticing users to subscribe to a given channel by depicting its popularity.
Regarding claims 3, 14 and 22, Freund and Thomas teach wherein the first interface element comprises an interface element having a card style in the content push page (Freund: 220, Figs. 2 and 3; 402/408, Fig. 8; col. 7 lines 28-49; col. 14 lines 27-47).
Regarding claims 4, 15 and 23, Freund and Thomas teach wherein the first interface element comprises an interface element for pushing a content item in the content push page (Freund: 220, Figs. 2 and 3, col. 12 lines 61-67; or 408, Figs. 4).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Freund and Thomas teach further comprising:
presenting a second interface element in association with the first interface element (Freund: either on the same element 220 or on a second element 402, user can select videos/channel content to ‘watch later’ collection or for re-recommendation for a future recommendation, col. 2 line 60 to col. 3 line 5; col. 9 lines 39-56; col. 13 line 45 to col. 14 line 26. Thomas: subscribe button to a channel or composite channel) ; and
in response to detecting a selection operation of a current user on the second interface element, adding the content collection into a collection follow list of the current user (Freund: col. 13 line 45 to col. 14 line 67, where the selected content that were added to the watch later or re-recommendation can be accessed by the user. Thomas: 2700, Fig. 27).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Freund and Thomas teach further comprising:
in response to detecting a content switching operation in the first interface element, presenting, in the first interface element, at least one further content item in the content collection (Freund: col. 6 line 56 to col. 7 line 28).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Freund and Thomas teach wherein the information related to the content collection comprises at least one of the following:
identification information of the content collection; identification information of the first user; respective interaction information of the at least one content item in the content collection; or identification information of a second user that posts the at least one content item in the content collection (Freund: at least: 218, Fig. 3; i.e. ‘By Donna K.’).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Freund and Thomas teach further comprising:
in response to detecting a selection operation in a predetermined region of the first interface element, presenting a detailed interface of the content collection (Freund: col. 12 line 1-46, where user can select items for presentation and in response, additional recommendations are prepared/presented and the selected content is fully played back on a second element of the interface).
Claim(s) 2, 13 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund et al. (hereinafter ‘Freund’, Patent No. 10,394,408) in view of Thomas et al. (hereinafter ‘Thomas’, Patent No. 9,509,798) in further view of McIntosh et al. (hereinafter ‘McIntosh’, Pub. No. 2011/0289139).
Regarding claims 2, 13 and 21, Freund and Thomas teach all the limitations of the claims they depend on. On the other hand, they do not explicitly teach
wherein the at least one content item comprises at least one video, and presenting the at least one content item comprises:
automatically playing the at least one video in the first interface element, or presenting a preview of the at least one video in the first interface element.
However, in an analogous art, McIntosh teaches a system for recommending content uploaded by users on a platform ([0036]; [0037]). Upon presentation of the selected a ranked/prioritized list of suggested content, the system automatically plays the recommended content in order on the list ([0061]-[0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Freund and Thomas’ invention with McIntosh’s feature of automatically play the suggested list for the benefit of having the user to relax without doing the job of individually having to select each content to watch.
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 OMAR S PARRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Mostly 10-6PM.
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 Flynn can be reached at 571-2721915. 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.
/OMAR S PARRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights