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 .
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 52 and 62 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,931,998. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the features of the present claims are anticipated by the features of the parent patent claim. The features of claims 52 and the similar features of 62 are anticipated by the combined features of claim 8 and its parent claim 1.
Present Claim
52. A method comprising:
accessing, based on a profile of the user, information about media assets that were previously stored in relation to the profile;
determining, based on the information about the media assets that were previously stored in relation to the profile, a characteristic preferred by the user;
determining whether the characteristic is included in a data structure indicating characteristics for which storing should be performed;
based on determining that the characteristic is not included in the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed, automatically updating the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed to include the characteristic; and
in response to receiving, from a device of a user, a request to store a media asset, causing a version of the media asset with the characteristic to be stored in relation to the profile.
US Patent No. 10,931,998
1. A method comprising:
Monitoring media consumption habits of a user;
Receiving a request to store a first version of a media asset from the user;
Determining that a second version of the media asset was previously stored by the user, wherein determining that the second version of the media asset was previously stored by the user comprises:
Accessing a data structure, associated with a profile of the user, that contains information about media assets that were previously stored by the user;
In response to determining that the second version of the media asset was previously stored by the user, determining a characteristic associated with the second version of the media asset that was previously stored;
Determining, based at least in part on the monitored media consumption habits of the user, whether the user prefers the second version to the first version, wherein determining whether the user prefers the second version to the first version comprises:
Comparing the characteristic associated with the second version of the media asset that was previously stored with a corresponding characteristic associated with the first version of the media asset to identify a difference between the characteristic associated with the second version of the media asset that was previously stored and the corresponding characteristic associated with the first version of the media asset; and
Determining whether the difference is included in a database of pre-defined differences for which storing should be performed; and
Either, in response to determining that the difference is included in the database of pre-defined differences for which storing should be performed, determining that the user prefers the first version to the second version and storing the first version; or
In response to determining that the difference is not included in the database of pre-defined differences for which storing should be performed, determining that the user prefers the second version and refraining from storing the first version.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the database of pre-defied differences for which storing should be performed is dynamically updated, and wherein the updating comprises:
Determining, based on the user’s media consumption habits, version of media assets that are most preferred by the user;
Determining, based on versions of media assets that are most preferred by the user differences for which storing should be performed; and
Storing the differences in the database of pre-defined differences for which storing should be performed.
Claims 52-54, 58-59, 60, 62-64, 68-69 70 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US Patent No. 10,931,998 in view of in view of Archer et al. (US 2008/0301732 A1).
Regarding claim 52 and 62, US Patent No 10,931,998 claim 1 discloses a method comprising: monitoring media consumption habits of a user; Receiving a request to store a first version of a media asset from the user; Determining that a second version of the media asset was previously stored by the user, wherein determining that the second version of the media asset was previously stored by the user comprises: Accessing a data structure, associated with a profile of the user, that contains information about media assets that were previously stored by the user;
In response to determining that the second version of the media asset was previously stored by the user, determining a characteristic associated with the second version of the media asset that was previously stored; Determining, based at least in part on the monitored media consumption habits of the user, whether the user prefers the second version to the first version, wherein determining whether the user prefers the second version to the first version comprises: Comparing the characteristic associated with the second version of the media asset that was previously stored with a corresponding characteristic associated with the first version of the media asset to identify a difference between the characteristic associated with the second version of the media asset that was previously stored and the corresponding characteristic associated with the first version of the media asset; and Determining whether the difference is included in a database of pre-defined differences for which storing should be performed; and either, in response to determining that the difference is included in the database of pre-defined differences for which storing should be performed, determining that the user prefers the first version to the second version and storing the first version; or In response to determining that the difference is not included in the database of pre-defined differences for which storing should be performed, determining that the user prefers the second version and refraining from storing the first version
Claim 1 does not disclose determining whether the characteristic is included in a data structure indicating characteristics for which storing should be performed;
based on determining that the characteristic is not included in the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed, automatically updating the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed to include the characteristic.
Archer discloses determining whether the characteristic is included in a data structure indicating characteristics for which storing should be performed; based on determining that the characteristic is not included in the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed, automatically updating the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed to include the characteristic (See [0060-0064] and Fig 6 and Fig 7. The profile information data structure 700 stores information of interest to the user, media types, program types etc. Continuously updating the data structure of profile information 700 with the data in the 600 recording related media content information would result in adding characteristics, see [0064]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Radloff with the known methods of Archer predictably resulting in determining whether the characteristic is included in a data structure indicating characteristics for which storing should be performed; based on determining that the characteristic is not included in the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed, automatically updating the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed to include the characteristic by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of continuously updating user recording preferences according to recorded content items as suggested by Archer.
Claims 53-54 and 63-64 are further rejected in view of the similar features of claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. US Patent No. 10,931,998.
Claims 58-59 and 68-69 are further rejected in view of the similar features of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. US Patent No. 10,931,998.
Claims 60 and 70 are further rejected in view of the similar features of claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. US Patent No. 10,931,998.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 52-54, 56-58, 62-64, and 66-68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radloff et al. (US 2008/0141317 A1) in view of Archer et al. (US 2008/0301732 A1).
Regarding claim 52 and 62, Radloff discloses a method and system comprising:
a memory, control circuitry, input/output (See Fig 1 [0025-0043]) circuitry configured to:
accessing, based on a profile of the user, information about media assets (See [0013] [0047] [0058] a user profile of viewing preferences) that were previously stored in relation to the profile (See [0038] storing/recording media assets and media content information, see [0058] the user profile may be derived from and automatically adjusted based on active user monitoring including all user interaction with the user equipment which would include stored media assets. See [0047] selecting a version for buffering of media content derived from user history, user activity/monitoring or user profile information.);
determining, based on the information about the media assets that were previously stored in relation to the profile, a characteristic preferred by the user (See [0058] determining user preferences and the corresponding characteristics based on the active user monitoring; see [0038] including storing/recording media assets); and
in response to receiving through input/output circuitry, from a device of a user, a request to store a media asset, causing a version of the media asset with the characteristic to be stored in relation to the profile (See [0010] [0013] a user selectable buffering and corresponding recording of user preferences according to active monitoring and storing media including DVR features [0038]).
Radloff does not disclose determining whether the characteristic is included in a data structure indicating characteristics for which storing should be performed;
based on determining that the characteristic is not included in the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed, automatically updating the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed to include the characteristic.
Archer discloses determining whether the characteristic is included in a data structure indicating characteristics for which storing should be performed; based on determining that the characteristic is not included in the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed, automatically updating the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed to include the characteristic (See [0060-0064] and Fig 6 and Fig 7. The profile information data structure 700 stores information of interest to the user, media types, program types etc. Continuously updating the data structure of profile information 700 with the data in the 600 recording related media content information would result in adding characteristics, see [0064]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Radloff with the known methods of Archer predictably resulting in determining whether the characteristic is included in a data structure indicating characteristics for which storing should be performed; based on determining that the characteristic is not included in the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed, automatically updating the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed to include the characteristic by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of continuously updating user recording preferences according to recorded content items as suggested by Archer.
Regarding claim 53 and 63, Radloff and Archer further disclose the method of claim 52, further comprising: determining media consumption habits corresponding to the profile of the user based on the information about the media assets that were previously stored in relation to the profile (See Archer [0060-0064] and Fig 6 and Fig 7 “monitoring recording-related media content information provides an efficient and effective means for analyzing user recording preferences and behavior, such as the type of program the user likes to watch or the time of day the user is adapted to watch programs of his or her preferred type.”).
Regarding claim 54 and 64, Radloff and Archer further disclose the method of claim 53, wherein the characteristic is a first characteristic, and the method further comprises:
identifying, based on the media consumption habits corresponding to the profile of the user, a second characteristic that the profile of the user prefers; and updating the data structure of the characteristics for which storing should be performed to include the second characteristic (See Archer [0064]the recording preferences can include multiple different types of characteristics such as program types or time of day, [0076] genre, program title).
Regarding claim 56 and 66, Radloff and Archer further disclose the method of claim 52, wherein the characteristic corresponds to a resolution of a media asset (See Radloff [0007] [0013] HD vs SD, See Archer [0083]).
Regarding claim 57 and 67, Radloff and Archer further disclose the method of claim 56, further comprising: updating the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed by updating a value corresponding to a resolution field within the data structure (See Radloff [0007] [0013] HD vs SD, See Archer [0083]. Radloff indicating a user profile preference for HD or highest definition).
Regarding claim 58 and 68, Radloff and Archer further disclose the method of claim 52, further comprising: updating the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed based on an available storage capacity of the user device (See Archer [0060] device type information may include total and remaining storage space on the recording device).
Claim(s) 55 and 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radloff et al. (US 2008/0141317 A1) in view of Archer et al. (US 2008/0301732 A1) in view of van Coppenolle et al. (US 2014/0082654 A1).
Regarding claim 55 and 65, Radloff and Archer disclose the method of claim 52, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the profile of the user comprises information about media assets that were previously stored in relation to the user profile at a cloud DVR.
Coppenolle discloses that it was known for media assets to be stored at a cloud DVR and corresponding user information including content to be recorded (See [0083-0084], [0065]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination with the known methods of Coppenolle predictably resulting in the profile of the user comprises information about media assets that were previously stored in relation to the user profile at a cloud DVR by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of distributing storage outside of a user premise as suggested by Coppenolle.
Claim(s) 59, 61, 69 and 71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radloff et al. (US 2008/0141317 A1) in view of Archer et al. (US 2008/0301732 A1) in view of Gilson (US 2012/0278566 A1).
Regarding claim 59 and 69, Radloff and Archer disclose the method of claim 58, but do not explicitly disclose further comprising: retrieving a threshold storage capacity corresponding to the user device from a data structure identifying device properties; and in response to determining that the available storage capacity of the user device is less than the threshold storage capacity, assigning priority values to the characteristics for which storing should be performed.
Gilson discloses determining a threshold storage capacity being below a threshold and deleting lower priority content (See [0059]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination with the known methods of Gilson predictably resulting in retrieving a threshold storage capacity corresponding to the user device from a data structure identifying device properties; and in response to determining that the available storage capacity of the user device is less than the threshold storage capacity, assigning priority values to the characteristics for which storing should be performed by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of alleviating the problem of insufficient space.
Regarding claim 61 and 71, Radloff and Archer disclose the method of claim 59, but do not explicitly disclose further comprising: based on determining that the priority value corresponding to a particular characteristic from the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed is below a threshold, removing the particular characteristic from the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed.
Gilson discloses determining a threshold storage capacity being below a threshold assigning a priority characteristic to stored content and deleting lower priority content (See [0059]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination with the known methods of Gilson predictably resulting in based on determining that the priority value corresponding to a particular characteristic from the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed is below a threshold, removing the particular characteristic from the data structure indicating the characteristics for which storing should be performed by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of alleviating the problem of insufficient space.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 60 and 70 are rejected above with respect to double patenting doctrine. With a timely filed terminal disclaimed claims 60 and 70 would be indicated as objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest alone or in combination, all of the features of dependent claims 60 and 70 including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO ALCON whose telephone number is (571)270-5668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-7:00pm.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
FERNANDO . ALCON
Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/FERNANDO ALCON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425