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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to the Remarks filed on 01/08/2026.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected, objected to and are pending in this Office Action. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully and respectfully considered but are moot because the current ground of rejection is based on non-obvious double patenting and it does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application a continuation of 17571656, filed 01/10/2022, now U.S. Patent #12135756 which is continuation of 16218002, filed 12/12/2018, now U.S. Patent #11244017 and 16218002 is a continuation of 15357722, filed 11/21/2016 ,now U.S. Patent #10191990, filed 04/13/2018, under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12135756. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations. Especially, the U.S. Patent No.12135756 discloses more details in logic assets with the application scenario. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to realize that claims 1-20 of the instant application is fully disclosed by the U.S. Patent No.12135756.
The following table shows the claims in Instant Application that are rejected by corresponding claim(s) in U.S. Patent No.12135756.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No.12135756
1. A method, implemented by one or more computing devices, comprising:
receiving data associated with a first content item;
determining applicability scores for a first plurality of metadata tags associated with the first content item;;
adjusting an applicability score for a first metadata tag, of the first plurality of metadata tags, based on feedback data; and
based on comparing the adjusted applicability score to a threshold applicability score,
modifying a metadata field of the first content item to remove the first metadata tag; and
causing output of one or more content recommendations, to a user device, based on the modified first content item.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a second plurality of metadata tags associated with the first content item;
determining a second metadata tag, of the second plurality of metadata tags, comprising an applicability score satisfying the threshold applicability score; and
wherein the modifying the metadata field of the first content item comprises replacing the first metadata tag.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein each metadata tag in the first plurality of metadata tags has been assigned to at least a threshold quantity of other content items.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the threshold quantity of other
content items comprises a quantity of content items within a range of four content items to sixteen content items.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, via an input device, input indicating a content query; determining a second metadata tag,
wherein the second metadata tag is associated with the content query;
determining a plurality of content items associated with the second metadata tag;
determining applicability scores for one or more content items in the plurality of content items; and
determining, by applicability score, rankings for the plurality of content items associated with the second metadata tag.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the applicability score for the first metadata tag indicates a level of similarity between the first content item and a plurality of other content items associated with the first metadata tag.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a history of metadata tag removal for one or more content items;
adjusting, based on the history of metadata tag removal, a recommendation value for the one or more content items; and
transmitting a content recommendation for a second content item based on the recommendation value.
8. An apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
receive data associated with a first content item;
determine applicability scores for a first plurality of metadata tags associated with the first content item;
adjust an applicability score for a first metadata tag, of the first plurality of metadata tags, based on feedback data;
based on comparing the adjusted applicability score to a threshold applicability score, modify a metadata field of the first content item to remove the first metadata tag; and
cause output of one or more content recommendations, to a user device, based on
the modified first content item.
9. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to:
determine a second plurality of metadata tags associated with the first content item;
determine a second metadata tag, of the second plurality of metadata tags, comprising an applicability score satisfying the threshold applicability score; and
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to modify the metadata field of the first content item by replacing the first metadata tag with the second metadata tag.
10. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein each metadata tag in the first plurality of metadata tags has been assigned to at least a threshold quantity of other content items.
11. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the threshold quantity of other content items comprises a quantity of content items within a range of four content items to sixteen content items.
12. The apparatus of claim 8, further comprising an input device, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to:
receive, via the input device, input indicating a content query; determine a second metadata tag,
wherein the second metadata tag is associated with the content query;
determine a plurality of content items associated with the second metadata tag;
determine applicability scores for one or more content items in the plurality of content items; and
determine, by applicability score, rankings for the plurality of content items associated with the second metadata tag.
13. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the applicability score for the first metadata tag indicates a level of similarity between the first content item and a plurality of other content items associated with, the first metadata tag.
14. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to:
determine a history of metadata tag removal for one or more content items;
adjust, based on the history of metadata tag removal, a recommendation value for the one or more content items; and
transmit a content recommendation for a second content item based on the recommendation value.
15. One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed cause:
receiving data associated with a first content item;
determining applicability scores for a first plurality of metadata tags associated with the first content item;
adjusting an applicability score for a first metadata tag, of the first plurality of metadata tags, based on feedback data; and
based on comparing the adjusted applicability score to a threshold applicability score, modifying a metadata field of the first content item to remove the first metadata tag; and
outputting, to a computing device, one or more content recommendations based on the modified first content item.
16. The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause:
determining a second plurality of metadata tags associated with the first content item;
determining a second metadata tag, of the second plurality of metadata tags, comprising an applicability score satisfying the threshold applicability score; and
wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the modifying the metadata field of the
first content item by replacing the first metadata tag of the first plurality of metadata tags with the second metadata tag of the second plurality of metadata tags.
17. The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein each metadata tag in the first plurality of metadata tags has been assigned to at least a threshold number of other content items.
18. The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 17, wherein the threshold quantity of other content items comprises a quantity of content items within a range of four content items to sixteen content items.
19. The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause:
receiving, via an input device, input indicating a content query; determining a second metadata tag,
wherein the second metadata tag is associated with the content query;
determining a plurality of content items associated with the second metadata tag;
determining applicability scores for one or more content items in the plurality of content items; and
determining, by applicability score, rankings for the plurality of content items associated with the second metadata tag.
20. The one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the applicability score for the first metadata tag indicates a level of similarity between the first content item and a plurality of other content items associated with the first metadata tag.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, data indicating a first content item;
determining, by the computing device, a plurality of content items that are similar to the first content item; and
modifying a metadata field of the first content item to indicate a first metadata tag of a plurality of metadata tags applicable to the first content item, wherein the modifying is based on a ratio of:
a first aggregate similarity between the first content item and each of the plurality of content items; and
a second aggregate similarity between the first content item and each of second content items, of the plurality of content items, that are associated with the first metadata tag.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein each metadata tag, of the plurality of metadata tags, has been assigned to at least a threshold quantity of content items.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein each content item, of a plurality of other content items, has been presented to at least a threshold quantity of consumers.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a history of metadata tag removals for a second plurality of content items; and
sending, based on the history of metadata tag removals, a recommendation of a content item of the second plurality of content items.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: based on determining that a second applicability score, associated with a second metadata tag and the first content item, exceeds a first applicability score associated with the first metadata tag and the first content item, modifying the metadata field of the first content item to indicate the second metadata tag.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: based on determining that a second applicability score, associated with a second metadata tag and the first content item, exceeds a first applicability score associated with the first metadata tag and the first content item, modifying the metadata field of the first content item to replace the first metadata tag with the second metadata tag.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining applicability scores for a set of content items of a plurality of other content items; and based on ranking the set of content items by applicability score, sending a recommendation of a highest-ranked content item of the set of content items.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving data indicating user feedback associated with the first metadata tag and the first content item; and adjusting, based on the received data, a first applicability score for the first metadata tag and the first content item.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, based on similarity values indicating levels of similarity between the first content item and a plurality of other content items associated with the first metadata tag, a first applicability score for the first metadata tag and the first content item.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, for each content item of the plurality of content items, a first value indicating a similarity between the content item and the first content item, wherein the first aggregate similarity comprises a sum of the first values; and determining, for each content item of the second content items, a second value indicating a similarity between the content item, of the second content items, and the first content item, wherein the second aggregate similarity comprises a sum of the second values.
11. An apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
receive data indicating a first content item; determine a plurality of content items that are similar to the first content item; and
modify a metadata field of the first content item to indicate a first metadata tag of a plurality of metadata tags applicable to the first content item, wherein the modifying is based on a ratio of:
a first aggregate similarity between the first content item and each of the plurality of content items; and a
second aggregate similarity between the first content item and each of second content items, of the plurality of content items, that are associated with the first metadata tag.
12. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein each metadata tag, of the plurality of metadata tags, has been assigned to at least a threshold quantity of content items.
13. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein each content item, of a plurality of other content items, has been presented to at least a threshold quantity of consumers.
14. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to: determine a history of metadata tag removals for a second plurality of content items; and send, based on the history of metadata tag removals, a recommendation of a content item of the second plurality of content items.
15. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to: determine applicability scores for a set of content items of a plurality of other content items; and based on ranking the set of content items by applicability score, send a recommendation of a highest-ranked content item of the set of content items.
16. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to: receive data indicating user feedback associated with the first metadata tag and the first content item; and adjust, based on the received data, a first applicability score for the first metadata tag and the first content item.
17. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to: determine, for each content item of the plurality of content items, a first value indicating a similarity between the content item and the first content item, wherein the first aggregate similarity comprises a sum of the first values; and determine, for each content item of the second content items, a second value indicating a similarity between the content item, of the second content items, and the first content item, wherein the second aggregate similarity comprises a sum of the second values.
18. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, data indicating a first content item;
determining a first plurality of content items that are similar to the first content item; determining a second plurality of content items that are associated with a first metadata tag;
modifying a metadata field of the first content item to indicate the first metadata tag, wherein the modifying is based on comparing:
a first ratio of a quantity of the first plurality of content items that are associated with the first metadata tag to a quantity of the first plurality of content items; and
a second ratio of a quantity of the second plurality of content items that are similar to the first content item to a quantity of the second plurality of content items; and
causing, based on the modified metadata field of the first content item, output of an indication of a recommended content item.
19. The method of claim 18, further comprising: determining a product of the first ratio and the second ratio; and wherein the modifying the metadata field of the first content item is further based on the product exceeding a threshold value.
20. The method of claim 18, further comprising: determining a history of metadata tag removals for a plurality of content items; and sending, based on the history of metadata tag removals, a recommendation of a content item of the plurality of content items.
“Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected as non-statutory where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim.
Claims 1-20 are also objected to, but would be allowable if filing of a terminal disclaimer against U.S. Patent 12135756 to overcome the above rejections, the Patent was issued to the parent application 17571656 of the instant application.
Related Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEN S LU whose telephone number is (571)272-4114. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-19, Mid-Flex 2 hours.
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, Mr. Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on 571-270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KUEN S LU /Kuen S Lu/
Art Unit 2156
Primary Patent Examiner
March 12, 2026