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 filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Paragraphs 423 and figure 87 of Ellis et al teaches “a global list of programs that may currently be stored on a PVR may be generated and stored on user equipment or on a remote server” and paragraph 424 teaches “users may be permitted to edit the list. For example, a user may be provided with an opportunity to permanently delete a program that contains offensive materials” and figures 51-55B teach a delete priority. For example, figure 54 disclose Delete priority order by type of program (First on List is next to be Deleted), wherein the item in the list 3700 can be move up or down. These teaching corresponds to the newly added feature “updating the data structure, based at least in part on the accessed rule, to cause the data indicative of the media asset to be stored in association with a second deletion classifier instead of the fist deletion classifier” and the list, such as figure 54, stored in the PVR corresponds to the claimed “data structure”.
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 52, 55-62 and 65-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis et al (US 2002/0174430) and further in view of Japp (US 9,699,490).
For claim 52, Ellis et al teach a method comprising:
identifying information in relation to a media asset (e.g. figures 52-53, paragraph 360: title of the video program as shown in figures 53-54);
determining a first deletion classifier that is stored in a data structure (e.g. paragraph 423 and figure 87: a global list of programs that may currently be stored on a PVR may be generated and stored on user equipment or on a remote server ) in association with data indicative of the media asset (e.g. figures 54-55: “type of program”, “type of Broadcast”);
accessing a rule associated with information and the first deletion classifier (figures 54-55: “Delete priority order by type of program (First on list is next to be deleted)”, “Delete priority order by type of broadcast (First on list is next to be deleted)”);
updating the data structure, based at least in part on the accessed rule, to cause the data indicative of the media asset to be stored in association with a second deletion classifier instead of the fist deletion classifier (e.g. paragraph 424: users may be permitted to edit the list. For example, a user may be provided with an opportunity to permanently delete a program that contains offensive materials. figures 51-55B teach a delete priority. For example, figure 54 disclose Delete priority order by type of program (First on List is next to be Deleted), wherein the item in the list 3700 can be move up or down).
Ellis et al do not further disclose:
based at least in part on the updating of the first deletion classifier to the second deletion classifier, generating and providing for display a notification comprising a recommendation to view the media asset.
Japp teaches:
based at least in part on the updating of the first deletion classifier to the second deletion classifier, generating and providing for display a notification comprising a recommendation to view the media asset (e.g. figure 2, step 210: provide an item recommendation from the filtered/weighted candidate list of item; column 6, lines 3-25: “…the ranking, re-ranking, or removal of items from the candidate list may be based on how recently each candidate video was added to a watch list…As mentioned before for scenario 1, the browsing context and associated weighting factor may indicate that the user is in discovery mode, and thus candidate video recommendation B may receive a higher probability boost to increase the likelihood of it being provided as an item recommendation to the user;” ).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Japp into the teaching of Ellis et al to provide recommendation to improve selection of content items for the user (e.g. abstract, Japp).
Claim 62 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 52 above, wherein figure 2A of Ellis et al show a system comprising control circuity. Paragraph 475 of Ellis et al also teach a processor.
For claims 55 and 65, Ellis et teach the media asset comprises of at least one of a video (e.g. figure 2A, video recorder), a document, or a chat session.
For claims 56 and 66, Ellis et al do not further disclose the notification comprises an option that is selectable to access the media asset. Japp teaches the notification comprises an option that is selectable to access the media asset (e.g. column 2, lines 28-30: “watch lists or playlists”; figures 3-4, column 9,lines 20-42: user click on the video on the playlist). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Japp into the teaching of Ellis et al to provide recommendation to improve selection of content items for the user (e.g. abstract, Japp).
For claims 57 and 67, Ellis et al teach the notification further comprises an reference to at least one other media asset having a same deletion classifier as the second deletion classifier (figures 54-55: “Delete priority order by type of program (First on list is next to be deleted)”, “Delete priority order by type of broadcast (First on list is next to be deleted)”).
For claims 58 and 68, Ellis et al teach the information and the accessed rule is associated with an occurrence of an event in relation to at least one of a user associated with the media asset or the media asset (e.g. user selecting setting for e.g. figures 54-55: “Delete priority order by type of program (First on list is next to be deleted)”, “Delete priority order by type of broadcast (First on list is next to be deleted)”).
For claims 59 and 69, Ellis et al teach The method of claim 58, wherein the occurrence of the event and the updating of the first deletion classifier to the second deletion classifier causes deletion of the media asset to be scheduled for a different time than a time at which the media asset is initially scheduled for deletion based at least in part on the first deletion classifier. (e.g. user selecting setting at different time for e.g. figures 54-55: “Delete priority order by type of program (First on list is next to be deleted)”, “Delete priority order by type of broadcast (First on list is next to be deleted)”).
For claim 60 and 70, Ellis et al teach the first deletion classifier indicates that the media asset is to be deleted at a first time, and the second deletion classifier indicates that the media asset is to be deleted at a second time that is later than the first time, and the notification is generated and provided for display after the first time and at or before the second time. (e.g. user selecting setting at different time for e.g. figures 54-55: “Delete priority order by type of program (First on list is next to be deleted)”, “Delete priority order by type of broadcast (First on list is next to be deleted)” (e.g. paragraph 394: At step 3912, the interactive television application may cause the PVR to record or delete programs based on the PVR information that is associated with the household members. The PVR information may be updated when a program is recorded or deleted. so the list such as figure 52 should be updated after “Building a House” is deleted).
For claims 61 and 71, Ellis et al teach the first deletion classifier indicates that the media asset is to be deleted at a first time, and the second deletion classifier indicates that the media asset is to be deleted at a second time that is prior to the first time, and the notification is generated and provided for display at or before the second time. (e.g. user selecting setting at different time for e.g. figures 54-55: “Delete priority order by type of program (First on list is next to be deleted)”, “Delete priority order by type of broadcast (First on list is next to be deleted)” (e.g. paragraph 394: At step 3912, the interactive television application may cause the PVR to record or delete programs based on the PVR information that is associated with the household members. The PVR information may be updated when a program is recorded or deleted. so the list such as figure 52 should be updated after “Building a House” is deleted).
Claims 53-54 and 63-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis et al and Japp, as applied to claims 52, 55-62 and 65-71 above, and further in view of Fujihira et al (US 2009/0113068).
For claim 53 and 63, Ellis et al and Japp do not further disclose the information indicates a predefined period of time after which the media asset is to be deleted. Fujihira et al teach the information indicates a predefined period of time after which the media asset is to be deleted (e.g. paragraph 84: delete priority list, figure 6: Delete Inhibit Span: Up To 12:00 ON 1 January, 2007 for content 1). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Fujihira et al into the teaching of Ellis et al and Japp to perform prioritization of delete based on the probability of viewing content from a part where a user finished playback (e.g. paragraph 13, Fujihira et al) to reduce the viewing latency for user to improve user’s convenience.
For claims 54 and 64, Ellis et al and Japp do not further disclose determining that the predefined period of time has elapsed comprises determining that a current time corresponds to an end time of the predefined period of time. Fujihira et al teach determining that the predefined period of time has elapsed comprises determining that a current time corresponds to an end time of the predefined period of time. (e.g. paragraph 84: delete priority list, figure 6: Delete Inhibit Span: Up To 12:00 ON 1 January, 2007 for content 1). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Fujihira et al into the teaching of Ellis et al and Japp to perform prioritization of delete based on the probability of viewing content from a part where a user finished playback (e.g. paragraph 13, Fujihira et al) to reduce the viewing latency for user to improve user’s convenience.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAQUAN ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1119. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur: 7:00 am-5:00 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, Thai Tran can be reached on 571-272-7382. 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.
Email: daquan.zhao1@uspto.gov.
Phone: (571)270-1119
/DAQUAN ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights