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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bovenshulte et al. (US 8,613,024 B2, hereinafter refers Bovenshulte) in view of Locke (US 2008/0028023 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bovenshulte discloses a method for recommending content to a client device, the method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, a request from a client device, wherein the request includes one or more previous ratings corresponding to one or more content items (Fig. 10 and Fig. 13, el. 1305, col. 21, lines 1-18, the historical rating is received and extrapolate to determine more predicted rating );
generating, by the one or more processors, a recommendation including one or more recommended items, wherein the recommendation is based on the one or more previous ratings received in the request (Fig. 14, el. 1415, the programming recommendations are provided based on the rating);
transmitting, by the one or more processors, the recommendation to the client device (Fig. 14, el. 1415, col. 21, lines 14-35);
Bovenshulte does not explicitly disclose deleting, by the one or more processors, the one or more ratings received in the request;
Locke teaches deleting, by the one or more processors, the one or more ratings received in the request (para. 64, to delete previous rating);
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention to modify Bovenshulte to include Locke in order for a system to predict a more accurate data in provide the rating of a program.
Regarding claim 2, Bovenshulte in view of Locke discloses wherein generating the recommendation is further based on a predicted rating vector, wherein the predicted rating vector includes one or more predicted ratings for each of the one or more recommended items (Bovenshulte, Fig. 14, el. 1415, Fig. 4, el. 420).
Regarding claim 3, Bovenshulte in view of Locke discloses updating, by the one or more processors, the predicted ratings vector based on the one or more previous ratings corresponding to the one or more content items (Bovenshulte Fig. 13, col. 21, lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 4, Bovenshulte in view of Locke discloses wherein generating the recommendation further comprises: estimating, by the one or more processors, a weight vector in a factor model for identifying the one or more recommended items; utilizing, by the one or more processors, the estimated weight vector to determine the predicted rating vector (Bovenshulte Fig. 12, el. 1205-1210, col. 20, lines 43-61);
and selecting, by the one or more processors, a subset of the one or more recommended items based on the predicted rating vector (Bovenshulte Fig. 14, el. 1415).
Regarding claim 5, Bovenshulte in view of Locke discloses outputting, by the one or more processors, at least one recommended item of the one or more recommended items with a high predicted rating on a user interface of the client device (Fig. 14, el. 1415, Fig. 4, el. 420).
Regarding claim 6, Bovenshulte in view of Locke discloses wherein the recommendation includes a recommended item for each of the one or more content items (Fig. 14, el. 1415, Fig. 4, el. 420).
Regarding claim 7, Bovenshulte in view of Locke discloses wherein the one or more ratings corresponding to one or more content items are represented in a ratings vector, wherein a nonzero value in the ratings vector represents a user engagement with one of the one or more content items beyond a minimum threshold for engagement (Fig. 12, el. 1205, col. 20, lines 43-50).
Regarding claim 8, Bovenshulte in view of Locke discloses wherein the recommendation includes a scaled weight corresponding to each of the one or more recommended items, wherein the scaled weight corresponds to a relationship between the one or more recommended items and the corresponding one or more content items (Fig. 4, el. 400, the scale weight for this program is at 4 stars rating).
Regarding claim 9, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAI Y CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5679. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM -4:30 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, 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.
/CAI Y CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights