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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/20/2026 has been entered.
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, 55-56, 58-62, 65-66, and 68-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis et al (US 2002/0174430) and further in view of Hamano et al (US 2010/0333137).
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, automatically generating and providing for display a notification comprising a recommendation to view the media asset and a reference to at least one other media asset also having the second deletion classifier.
Hamano et al teaches:
based at least in part on the updating of the first deletion classifier to the second deletion classifier, automatically generating and providing for display a notification comprising a recommendation to view the media asset and a reference to at least one other media asset also having the second deletion classifier (e.g. paragraph 121: If the user is deleting programs, then the user profile and recommendations stored in, for example, storage 308 (FIG. 3), are updated based on the deleted program in step 1724 Figures 6-7 shows plurality of recommendation are displayed). 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 Hamano et al into the teaching of Ellis et al to provide recommendation to allow users to efficiently navigate media selections and easily identify media that they may desire (e.g. paragraph 31, Hamano et al).
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. Hamano et al teaches the notification comprises an option that is selectable to access the media asset (e.g. paragraph 34: A user may indicate a desire to access media information by selecting a selectable option provided in a display screen (e.g., a menu option, a listings option, an icon, a hyperlink, etc.) or pressing a dedicated button (e.g., a GUIDE button) on a remote control or other user input interface or device). 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 Hamano et al into the teaching of Ellis et al to provide recommendation to allow users to efficiently navigate media selections and easily identify media that they may desire (e.g. paragraph 31, Hamano et al).
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).
For claims 72 and 73, Ellis et al do not further disclose the accessing the rule and the updating the data structure is performed automatically without receiving user input. Hamano et al teach the accessing the rule and the updating the data structure is performed automatically without receiving user input (e.g. paragraph 121: If the user is deleting programs, then the user profile and recommendations stored in, for example, storage 308 (FIG. 3), are updated based on the deleted program in step 1724 Figures 6-7 shows plurality of recommendation are displayed). 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 Hamano et al into the teaching of Ellis et al to provide recommendation to allow users to efficiently navigate media selections and easily identify media that they may desire (e.g. paragraph 31, Hamano et al).
Claims 53-54 and 63-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis et al and Hamano et al, as applied to claims 52, 55-56, 58-62, 65-66, and 68-73 above, and further in view of Fujihira et al (US 2009/0113068).
For claim 53 and 63, Ellis et al and Hamano et al 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 Hamano et al 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 Hamano et al 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 Hamano et al 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.
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