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 .
Examiner’s Initiated Interview
For compact prosecution, Examiner contacted Applicant’s representative and provided a proposed amendment with prior art explained the reason for proposed amendment. The proposed amendment was not accepted (see interview summary for detail).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berezowski et al. (US 20020056087) in view of either Campbell et al. (US 20120278179) or Hendricks et al. (US 20030145323).
Note: all documents that are directly or indirectly incorporated by reference in their entireties in Berezowski (paragraphs 0034, 0035, 0039, 0058, 0060, 0077) including US 5589892 (referred to as Knee), Ser. No. 09/357,941 (corresponding to U.S 20050204387- referred to as Knudson), Ser. No. 09/374,043 (corresponding to U.S 20030020744- referred to as E744), Ser. No. 09/332,244 (corresponding to US 20030149988 -hereinafter referred to as E988), Ser. No. 09/139,798 (corresponding to US 20050149964 -hereinafter referred to as Thomas) are treated as part of the specification of Bovenschulte (see for example, MPEP 2163.07 (b)).
Similarly, all documents that are directly or indirectly incorporated by references in their entireties in Campbell (see paragraphs 0037, 0039, 0042, 0044, 0060, 0066, 0077) including 6,756,997 (referred to as Ward), Ser. No. 12570778 (corresponding to 20110078572 -referred to as Milazzo) or in Hendricks (paragraphs 0165, 0180, 0312, 0360, 0399, 0407, 0476) are treated as part of the specification of Campbell or Hendricks respectively.
Regarding claim 10, Berezowski discloses an apparatus comprising:
one or more processors (one or more processors in control circuitry 360– figure 3-4, paragraphs 0065, 0067, 0069, claim 0159, 0187); and
memory (memory 340-see Berezowski: figure 3, paragraphs 0063, 0067, claim 0159) storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
create a data structure comprising data records representing discrete time periods associated with video-viewing activity (creating a usage data structure based on monitored user interactions comprising data representing different time periods/time frame associated with video-viewing activity– see include, but are not limited to, figures 10-15, 17-18, paragraphs 0088, 0091-0092, 0098-0100, 0102; Thomas: figures 5-7, 9-10, paragraphs 0009-0010, 0050, 0052, 0055, 0057, 0061, 0070);
based on video-viewing-activity data received from a plurality of devices, assign, to one or more data records of the data structure, values indicating at least one of a video-viewing mode, of a plurality of viewing modes, or a video-viewing type of a plurality of video-viewing types (based on the video-viewing activity data collected from a plurality of user devices, assign, to one of more data records of the data structure, values/weights/ratings indicating at least one of the video-viewing type of user-identified program such as a movie, an advertisement, a game, recorded program, etc. or video-viewing mode of user-identified action such as type such as muting audio, recording, fast forward, etc. etc. – see include, but are not limited to, Berezowski: figures 10-19, paragraphs 0098-0105; Thomas: figures 5-7, 9-10, paragraphs 0009-0010, 0050, 0052, 0055, 0057, 0061, 0070);
for each device of the plurality of devices:
determine a plurality of time intervals of a time range during which the device outputted a video asset (for each user device of the plurality of devices: determine a plurality of time periods/time frames/time slots of a time range during which user device outputted/played/displayed a video asset/advertisement for viewing/recording – see include, but are not limited to, – see include, but are not limited to, Berezowski: figures 10-19, paragraphs 0098-0105; Thomas: figures 10b-12, paragraphs 0009-0010, 0035, 0050, 0055, 0057, 0061, 0070); and
use the data structure to determine, based on a video-viewing type or a video-viewing mode associated with each of the plurality of time intervals determined for the device, a subset plurality of time intervals associated with a first video-viewing type or a first video-viewing mode (using the data structure with content identifier and other user interactions/user-identifier actions collected from multiple user devices to determine, based on the video viewing type such as advertisement, pay-per-view or other type of video selected for viewing or video-viewing interaction such as selecting, muting audio, fast forwarding, etc. associated with each of the time periods/frames/slots associated with the video-viewing type such as advertisement, pay-per-view program, etc. or video-viewing function/interaction/user-identified actions such as muting audio, selecting another program, fast forwarding, etc. – – see include, but are not limited to, Berezowski: figures 10-19, paragraphs 0098-0105; Thomas: figures 10b-12, paragraphs 0009-0010, 0035, 0050, 0055, 0057, 0061, 0070);
determine, based on data records, of the data structure, associated with the subset plurality of time intervals, a video-viewing-activity metric indicating a quantity of devices that outputted, during one or more intervals of a plurality of intervals of the video asset, the video asset using the first video-viewing type or the first video-viewing function/interaction/user-identified actions; and output an indication of the determined video-viewing-activity metric (determine, based on data record, of the data structure, associated with a particular time frame/period/slot of the time periods, a video-viewing activity metric indicating a size/quantity of devices that outputted/displayed, during one or more time frame of a plurality of time frames of the video asset, the video asset using the first-viewing type of pay-per-view program, video advertisement, previously recorded program, etc. or first video-viewing function/interaction/user-identified actions; and output an indication of determined video-viewing activity metric/real time ratings with size/quantity of selections – see include, but are not limited to, Berezowski: figures 10-19, paragraphs 0098-0105;; Berezowski: figures 10-19, paragraphs 0009, 0074).
Berezowski does not explicitly disclose determining a subset of time intervals associated with a viewing type and viewing mode.
Additionally and/or alternatively, Campbell or Hendricks(hereinafter referred to as Campbell/Hendricks) discloses determining, based on a video-viewing type and a video-viewing mode associated with each of plurality of time intervals determined for a device, a subset plurality of time intervals associated with a first-viewing type and a first video-viewing mode (determining, based on a video-viewing type of news, ads, program, etc. and video-viewing mode such as switching history data, purchased, tuned, fast forward, volume up, etc. associated with each of periods/interval for a device, a subset time intervals/periods associated with news, ad, program, etc. and mode such as switching, fast forward, volume up, etc. – see include, but are not limited to, Campbell: figures 4-12, paragraphs 0011, 0014, 0016, 0070, 0073-0077, 0087-88, 0090, 0111; Ward: col. 28, line 15-col. 29, line 41, col. 30, line 43-col. 31, line 8; Hendricks: figures 6b, 24-27, 29, 32, 36, paragraphs 0033, 0152-0163, 0181, 0203, 0234, 0438, 0452-0453, 0460);
determining, based on data records, a video-viewing activity metrics indicating a quantity of devices that outputted, during one or more intervals of a plurality of intervals of the video asset, the video asset using the first video-viewing type and the first video-viewing mode (determining, based on data records of viewing history and interaction, a video-viewing activity metrics/matrix/file indicating a quantities of devices/terminals that outputted/displayed/played during one or more intervals of a plurality of the video asset/program, the video asset of program, advertisement, news, etc. using the first viewing-viewing type of advertisement, news, program, etc. and video-viewing mode of switching history data, user-identified action, etc. – see include, but are not limited to, Campbell: figures 4-12, paragraphs 0011, 0014, 0016, 0070, 0073-0077, 0087-88, 0090, 0111; Ward: col. 30, line 43-col. 31, line 8, col. 32, lines 7-59; Hendricks: figures 6b, 24-27, 29, 32, 36, paragraphs 0033, 0152-0163, 0181, 0203, 0234, 0438, 0452-0453, 0460).
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 Berezowski with the teachings including determining a subset of time intervals associated with a viewing type and viewing mode and video-viewing metric using the first video-viewing type and the first video-viewing mode as taught by Campbell/Hendricks in order to yield predictable result of reducing cost for providing media program that is most suited for user, deducing user information from user behavior with higher confidence – see for example, Campbell: paragraphs 0006, 0072-0073, 0078).
Regarding claim 11, Berezowski in view of Campbell/Hendricks discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: use the data structure to determine a video-viewing type by determining whether the video asset was outputted from a linear source, from a digital video recorder (DVR) source, or from a video on demand (VOD) source (see Berezowski: paragraph 0070, Campbell: figure 1, paragraphs 0035, 0060; Hendricks: paragraph 0139, 0294) .
Regarding claim 12, Berezowski in view of Campbell/Hendricks discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: determine, based on the data records and for each time interval of the plurality of time intervals, one of a playback mode, a fast-forward mode, or a rewind mode (see include, but are not limited to, Berezowski: figure 17, step 1620, figures 18-19, paragraphs 0095, 0100; Campbell: figures 9-11, paragraphs 0075, 0090, 0134).
Regarding claim 13, Berezowski in view of Campbell/Hendricks discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: use the data structure to determine, based on the plurality of time intervals determined for each device of the plurality of devices, a quantity of devices that outputted, during the one or more intervals of the plurality of intervals of the video asset, the video asset using the first video-viewing type and a second video-viewing mode (see include, but are not limited to, Berezowski: figures 10-19, paragraphs 0098-0105; Thomas: figures 10b-12, paragraphs 0009-0010, 0035, 0050, 0055, 0057, 0061, 0070; Campbell: figures 4-12, paragraphs 0011, 0014, 0016, 0070, 0073-0077, 0087-88, 0090, 0111; Ward: col. 30, line 43-col. 31, line 8, col. 32, lines 7-59; Hendricks: figures 6b, 24-27, 29, 32, 36, paragraphs 0033, 0152-0163, 0181, 0203, 0234, 0438, 0452-0453, 0460 and similar discussion in the rejection of claim 10).
Regarding claim 14, Berezowski in view of Campbell/Hendricks discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to use the data structure to determine a video-viewing mode by determining, for each time interval of the plurality of time intervals determined for the device, one of a playback mode, a fast-forward mode, or a rewind mode (see include, but are not limited to, Berezowski: figure 17, step 1620, figures 18-19, paragraphs 0095, 0100; Campbell: figures 9-11, paragraphs 0075, 0090, 0134).
Regarding claim 15, Berezowski in view of Campbell/Hendricks discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the video asset comprises an advertisement (see Berezowski: paragraphs 0010, 0070; Thomas: figures 5, 9; Campbell: figures 1, 11, paragraphs 0038-0039, 0137; Hendricks: paragraphs 0023, 0095).
Regarding claim 16, limitations of a system that correspond to the limitations of the apparatus in claim 10 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 10. Particularly, Berezowski in view of Campbell/Hendricks discloses a system comprising:
a computing device comprising:
one or more first processors; and first memory storing first instructions that, when executed by the one or more first processors, cause the computing device to:
create a data structure comprising data records representing discrete time periods associated with video-viewing activity;
based on video-viewing-activity data received from a plurality of devices, assign, to one or more data records of the data structure, values indicating at least one of a video-viewing mode, of a plurality of viewing modes, or a video-viewing type of a plurality of video-viewing types;
for each device of the plurality of devices: determine a plurality of time intervals of a time range during which the device outputted a video asset; and
use the data structure to determine, based on a video-viewing type and a video-viewing mode associated with each of the plurality of time intervals determined for the device, a subset plurality of time intervals associated with a first video-viewing type and a first video-viewing mode;
determine, based on data records, of the data structure, associated with the subset plurality of time intervals, a video-viewing-activity metric indicating a quantity of devices that outputted, during one or more intervals of a plurality of intervals of the video asset, the video asset using the first video-viewing type and the first video-viewing mode; and output an indication of the determined video-viewing-activity metric; and
a viewing device comprising: one or more second processors; and
second memory storing second instructions that, when executed by the one or more second processors, cause the viewing device to send at least a portion of the video-viewing-activity data (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 10 and include, but are not limited to, Berezowski: figures 1, 3-4, 17-19; Thomas: figures 1, 5-7, 11-13, Campbell: figures 3-4; Hendricks: figures 1, 3, 25-27, 35, wherein the “viewing device” in last limitation is interpreted as one of the user device/display/terminal that comprises a second processor/control circuitry and second memory storing instructions for causing the viewing device/user device to send at least a portion of the video viewing-activity data/history to other device/server).
Regarding claims 17-20, additional limitations of the system that correspond to the additional limitations of the apparatus in claims 11-12, 14-15 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claims 11-12, 14-15.
Regarding claim 1, limitations of a method as claimed that correspond to the limitations of apparatus claimed in claim 10 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 10. Particularly, Berezowski in view of Campbell/Hendricks discloses a method comprising: creating, by a computing system, a data structure comprising data records representing discrete time periods associated with video-viewing activity;
based on video-viewing-activity data received from a plurality of devices, assigning by the computing system, to one or more data records of the data structure,
values indicating at least one of a video-viewing mode, of a plurality of viewing modes, or a video-viewing type of a plurality of video-viewing types;
for each device of the plurality of devices: determining, by the computing system, a plurality of time intervals of a time range during which the device outputted a video asset; and
using the data structure to determine, by the computing system and based on a video-viewing type and a video-viewing mode associated with each of the plurality of time intervals determined for the device, a subset plurality of time intervals associated with a first video-viewing type and a first video-viewing mode;
determining, by the computing system and based on data records, of the data structure, associated with the subset plurality of time intervals, a video-viewing-activity metric indicating a quantity of devices that outputted, during one or more intervals of a plurality of intervals of the video asset, the video asset using the first video-viewing type and the first video-viewing mode; and
outputting, by the computing system, an indication of the determined video-viewing-activity metric (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 10 above).
Regarding claims 2-6, additional limitations of the method as claimed that are correspond to the additional limitations of claims 15, 11-14 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claims 15, 11-14.
Regarding claim 7, Berezowski in view of Campbell/Hendricks discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the time range determined for a first device of the plurality of devices is associated with a first airing of the video asset; and the time range determined for a second device of the plurality of devices is associated with a second airing of the video asset (time range determined for first device and second device is associated with the first airing and second airing of the video asset/program based on area/location of the devices/terminals – see include, but are not limited to, Berezowski: figures 10-11, 15, 19, paragraph 0089; Thomas: paragraphs 0070; Campbell: figures 6-8, 12, paragraphs 0076, 0088, 0140; Hendricks: figures 6b, 27-29, 32, paragraphs 0019, 0189, 0193, 0207, 0231-0232; E988: figure 5, paragraphs 0009, 0136).
Regarding claim 8, Berezowski in view of Campbell/Hendricks discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a video-viewing type, of the plurality of video-viewing types, comprises digital video recorder viewing (see include, but are not limited to, Berezowski: figures 3, 17-19, paragraphs 0059, 0066, Campbell: paragraphs 0035, 0119, 0123).
Regarding claim 9, Berezowski in view of Campbell/Hendricks discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a video-viewing type, of the plurality of video-viewing types, comprises linear viewing (scheduled/broadcast content viewing or linear viewing – see include, but are not limited to, Berezowski: figures 5-6, 8, paragraph 0095; Campbell: paragraphs 0035, 0080; Hendricks: paragraphs 0023, 0212).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12200298.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims 1-20 and Patent claims 1-22 are directed to the same invention with a different in scope and are therefore an obvious variant thereof or the invention defined in instant claims 1-20 is an obvious variation of the invention defined in the patent claims 1-22 because for limitations in the instant claims that are not recited in patent claims (e.g., for each device of the plurality of device: determining a plurality of time range during which the device outputted a video asset…) are known by prior art (see for example, prior arts discussed in the rejection above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine in patent claims with the well-known teachings as taught in the prior art cited above for the benefit as discussed in the prior art such as improving efficiency for providing desired content.
Allowance of claims 1-20 would result in an un-warranted timewise extension of the monopoly granted for the invention as defined in claims 1-22 of Patent No. 12200298.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Trajkovic et al. (US 8751957) discloses method and apparatus for obtaining auditory and gestural feedback in a recommendation system (see also figure 3b for viewing history with viewing content type and mode of positive or negative).
Schaffer et al. (US 7937725) discloses three-way media recommendation method and system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN SON PHI HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7295. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-6:30 pm.
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, NASSER M. GOODARZI can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/AN SON P HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
February 4, 2026