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 .
1. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1, 11 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The element “first personalized media content” in line 5 of claim 1 should be a first personalized media content.
The element “second personalized media content” in line 7 of claim 1 should be a second personalized media content.
The element “first personalized media content” in line 2 of claim 11 should be a first personalized media content.
The element “second personalized media content” in line 4 of claim 11 should be a second personalized media content.
The element “first personalized media content” in line 3 of claim 19 should be a first personalized media content.
The element “second personalized media content” in line 5 of claim 19 should be a second personalized media content.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. Claims 1-2, 9-12 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 10, 14 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,351. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant application claims 1-2, 9-12 and 19-20 are anticipated by patent claims 1, 5, 10, 14 and 19.
Claim 1 of the above patent recites every element of claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim 5 of the above patent recites every element of claim 2 of the instant application.
Claim 1 of the above patent recites every element of claim 9 of the instant application.
Claim 1 of the above patent recites every element of claim 10 of the instant application.
Claim 10 of the above patent recites every element of claim 11 of the instant application.
Claim 14 of the above patent recites every element of claim 12 of the instant application.
Claim 19 of the above patent recites every element of claim 19 of the instant application.
Claim 5 of the above patent recites every element of claim 20 of the instant application.
Therefore, claims 1, 5, 10, 14 and 19 of the above patent are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of claims 1-2, 9-12 and 19-20 of the instant application. It has been held that a generic invention is anticipated by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
4. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,351, in view of Shukla et al. (hereafter, “Shukla”), US 2019/0266288 A1.
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 of the above patent recites every element of claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim 1 of the above patent lacks identifying trending public media content not included in the first personalized media content and not included in the second personalized media content; and updating the unified content feed with the trending public media content.
Shukla discloses identifying trending public media content not included in the first personalized media content and not included in the second personalized media content (i.e., one or more web documents associated with a selected trending subtopic are determined, page 3 paragraph [0050]); and updating the unified content feed with the trending public media content (i.e., a content feed is updated to include web documents that are currently trending, page 3 paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system recited in claim 1 of the above patent to comprise identifying trending public media content not included in the first personalized media content and not included in the second personalized media content; and updating the unified content feed with the trending public media content, as taught by Shukla, in order to allow relevant content to be identified (i.e., Shukla, page 21 paragraph [0266]).
Regarding claim 13, claim 10 of the above patent recites every element of claim 11 of the instant application.
Claim 10 of the above patent lacks identifying trending public media content not included in the first personalized media content and not included in the second personalized media content; and updating the unified content feed with the trending public media content.
Shukla discloses identifying trending public media content not included in the first personalized media content and not included in the second personalized media content (i.e., one or more web documents associated with a selected trending subtopic are determined, page 3 paragraph [0050]); and updating the unified content feed with the trending public media content (i.e., a content feed is updated to include web documents that are currently trending, page 3 paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method recited in claim 10 of the above patent to comprise identifying trending public media content not included in the first personalized media content and not included in the second personalized media content; and updating the unified content feed with the trending public media content, as taught by Shukla, in order to allow relevant content to be identified (i.e., Shukla, page 21 paragraph [0266]).
5. Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,351, in view of Kim, US 2021/0266275 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Claim 1 of the above patent recites every element of claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim 1 of the above patent lacks wherein causing display of the unified content feed comprises: causing display of the unified content feed comprising the shared content and first personalized content for the first user on a first user device associated with the first user; and causing display of the unified content feed comprising the shared content and second personalized content for the second user on a second user device associated with the second user.
Kim teaches a method for evaluating a content through an instant messaging application (seen in abstract). Kim teaches wherein causing display of the unified content feed comprises: causing display of the unified content feed comprising the shared content and first personalized content for the first user on a first user device associated with the first user, and causing display of the unified content feed comprising the shared content and second personalized content for the second user on a second user device associated with the second user (i.e., Kim, in page 4 paragraph [0054, discloses a plurality of user accounts are participating in a chat room and are able to exchange text messages with each other through the chat room. Kim, page 4 paragraph [0057], discloses a plurality of contents may be generated and shared through the chat room).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system recited in claim 1 of the above patent to comprise causing display of the unified content feed comprising the shared content and first personalized content for the first user on a first user device associated with the first user; and causing display of the unified content feed comprising the shared content and second personalized content for the second user on a second user device associated with the second user, as taught by Kim. One would be motivated to do so to allow the shared content to be effectively evaluated through a chat room.
Regarding claim 5, Claim 1 of the above patent recites every element of claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim 1 of the above patent lacks wherein the unified content feed is displayed within a chat session user interface for a chat session between the first user and the second user.
Kim discloses the unified content feed is displayed within a chat session user interface for a chat session between the first user and the second user (i.e., output the selected at least one content through the chat session, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system recited in claim 1 of the above patent to display the content feed within the chat session, as taught by Kim. One would be motivated to do so to allow the content feed to be effectively evaluated through a chat room.
Regarding claim 6, Claim 1 of the above patent recites every element of claim 1 of the instant application.
The claim 1 of the above patent lacks wherein the unified content feed is displayed in response to a selection of a user interface element within a chat session user interface for a chat session between the first user and the second user.
Kim teaches the unified content feed is displayed in response to a selection of a user interface element within a chat session user interface for a chat session between the first user and the second user (i.e., information associated with the selected at least one content may be output to the chat room together with the selected at least one content, page 11 paragraph [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system recited in the claim 1 of the above patent to display the content feed in response to a selection of a user interface element within a chat session user interface for a chat session between the first user and the second user, as taught by Kim. One would be motivated to do so to allow a specific content to be effectively evaluated through the chat room.
Regarding claims 14-16, those claims recite a method performed by system claims 4-6, same rationale of rejections is applied.
6. Claims 7 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,351, in view of Elmekies, US 9,652,046 B2.
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 of the above patent recites every element of claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim 1 of the above patent lacks wherein the shared content is displayed with boundaries within the unified content feed.
Elmekies discloses content is displayed with boundaries within the unified content feed (i.e., element…in feed and said element and its boundaries are identified based at least in part on color identification, col. 15 lines 7-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system recited in the claim 1 of the above patent to display content with boundaries in the content feed, as taught by Elmekies. One would be motivated to do so to allow the element/content in the feed to be prominently displayed.
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites a method performed by system claim 7, same rationale of rejection is applied.
7. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,351, in view of Mayfield, US 2022/0353466 A1.
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 of the above patent recites every element of claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim 1 of the above patent lacks wherein the shared content is displayed centered within the unified content feed.
Mayfield teaches the shared content is displayed centered within the unified content feed (i.e., display the share in the center of the display, page 2 paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system recited in claim 1 of the above patent to display the shared content centered within the unified content feed, as taught by Mayfield, in order to display the shared content in a prominent position (i.e., page 2 paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites a method performed by system claim 8, same rationale of rejection is applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claim(s) 1-2, 9-12 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dai et al. (hereafter, “Dai”), US 2016/0191639 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Dai teaches a system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations (i.e., processor can process instructions for execution within computer device, including instructions stored in the memory or on storage device, page 19 paragraph [0128]), comprising:
accessing first personalized media content associated with a first social media profile of a first user (i.e., Dai, in page 1 paragraph [0004], discloses determine a first usage data of the first user, page 1 paragraph [0004]. Dai, in page 8 paragraph [0062], further discloses the usage data received from the profile record generated by the system that allows for a comparison of two usage data or user profile records or two users);
accessing second personalized media content associated with a second social media profile of a second user (i.e., Dai, in page 1 paragraph [0004], discloses identifying a second user having second usage data. Dai, in page 8 paragraph [0062], further discloses the usage data received from the profile record generated by the system that allows for a comparison of two usage data or user profile records or two users);
generating a shared dataset based on identifying common aspects comprising a first overlap in subscriptions to content creators between the first personalized media content and the second personalized media content and a second overlap in media content categories between the first personalized media content and the second personalized media content (i.e., Dai, in page 7 paragraph [0061], discloses cluster user profile records based on the subscription tags of each user profile record associated with each user…each cluster includes profile records of users that have subscriptions to similar content feeds, page 7 paragraph [0061]. Dai, in page 2 paragraph [0008], further discloses each subscription tag associated with one or more entities and categories);
based on the shared dataset, generating shared content comprising public media content related to the shared dataset (i.e., determining a second user from the one or more other users as having a highest number of similar categories and/or entities with the first user… identifying one or more subscription feeds, page 17 paragraph [0118]); and
causing display of a unified content feed comprising the shared content (i.e., transmit to the first user device recommendation data 220 including identified one or more subscription feeds of the second user, Fig. 3B and page 17 paragraph [0118]).
Regarding claim 2, Dai teaches the system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: receiving an indication of a recommended public media content from the first personalized media content (i.e., transmit to the first user device recommendation data 220 including identified one or more subscription feeds of the second user, Fig. 3B and page 17 paragraph [0118]); and updating the unified content feed with the recommended public media content (i.e., checks the content feed for updated information for each content feed it subscribed to, page 13 paragraph [0091]) .
Regarding claim 9, Dai teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the common aspects further comprise a third overlap in category interests between the first personalized media content and the second personalized media content (i.e., grouping users, by way of their profile ID or their profile record, that have a first threshold number of similarity categories, page 17 paragraph [0118]).
Regarding claim 10, Dai teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the common aspects further comprise a third overlap in interaction information between the first personalized media content and the second personalized media content (i.e., identifying a second user having second usage data that has a threshold similarity to the first usage data amongst the users, abstract).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, those claims recite a method performed by system claims 1 and 2, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, those claims comprise a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform similar operations, recited in claims 1 and 2, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
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.
9. Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai, in view of Shukla et al. (hereafter, “Shukla”), US 2019/0266288 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Dai teaches the system of claim 1.
Dai does not explicitly teach the operations further comprising: identifying trending public media content not included in the first personalized media content and not included in the second personalized media content; and updating the unified content feed with the trending public media content.
Shukla teaches web documents associated the selected trending subtopic are provided (seen in abstract). Shukla teaches identifying trending public media content not included in the first personalized media content and not included in the second personalized media content (i.e., one or more web documents associated with a selected trending subtopic are determined, page 3 paragraph [0050]); and updating the unified content feed with the trending public media content (i.e., a content feed is updated to include web documents that are currently trending, page 3 paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Dai to identify trending public media content not included in the first personalized media content and not included in the second personalized media content; and update the unified content feed with the trending public media content, as taught by Shukla. One would be motivated to do so to allow relevant content to be identified (i.e., Shukla, page 21 paragraph [0266]).
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites limitations that are similar to claim 3, same rationale of rejections is applied.
10. Claim(s) 4-6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai, in view of Kim, US 2021/0266275 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Dai teaches the system of claim 1.
Dai does not explicitly teach wherein causing display of the unified content feed comprises: causing display of the unified content feed comprising the shared content and first personalized content for the first user on a first user device associated with the first user; and causing display of the unified content feed comprising the shared content and second personalized content for the second user on a second user device associated with the second user.
Kim teaches a method for evaluating a content through an instant messaging application (seen in abstract). Kim teaches wherein causing display of the unified content feed comprises: causing display of the unified content feed comprising the shared content and first personalized content for the first user on a first user device associated with the first user, and causing display of the unified content feed comprising the shared content and second personalized content for the second user on a second user device associated with the second user (i.e., Kim, in page 4 paragraph [0054, discloses a plurality of user accounts are participating in a chat room and are able to exchange text messages with each other through the chat room. Kim, page 4 paragraph [0057], discloses a plurality of contents may be generated and shared through the chat room).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Dai to cause display of the unified content feed comprising the shared content and first personalized content for the first user on a first user device associated with the first user; and cause display of the unified content feed comprising the shared content and second personalized content for the second user on a second user device associated with the second user, as taught by Kim. One would be motivated to do so to allow the shared content to be effectively evaluated through a chat room.
Regarding claim 5, Dai teaches the system of claim 1.
Dai does not explicitly teach wherein the unified content feed is displayed within a chat session user interface for a chat session between the first user and the second user.
Kim teaches the unified content feed is displayed within a chat session user interface for a chat session between the first user and the second user (i.e., output the selected at least one content through the chat session, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Dai to display the content feed within the chat session, as taught by Kim. One would be motivated to do so to allow the content feed to be effectively evaluated through a chat room.
Regarding claim 6, Dai teaches the system of claim 1.
Dai does not explicitly teach wherein the unified content feed is displayed in response to a selection of a user interface element within a chat session user interface for a chat session between the first user and the second user.
Kim teaches the unified content feed is displayed in response to a selection of a user interface element within a chat session user interface for a chat session between the first user and the second user (i.e., information associated with the selected at least one content may be output to the chat room together with the selected at least one content, page 11 paragraph [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Dai to display the content feed in response to a selection of a user interface element within a chat session user interface for a chat session between the first user and the second user, as taught by Kim. One would be motivated to do so to allow a specific content to be effectively evaluated through the chat room.
Regarding claims 14-16, those claims recite limitations that are similar to claims 4-6, same rationale of rejections is applied.
11. Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai, in view of Elmekies, US 9,652,046 B2.
Regarding claim 7, Dai teaches the system of claim 1.
Dai does not explicitly teach wherein the shared content is displayed with boundaries within the unified content feed.
Elmekies teaches content is displayed with boundaries within the unified content feed (i.e., element…in feed and said element and its boundaries are identified based at least in part on color identification, col. 15 lines 7-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Dai, to display content with boundaries in the content feed, as taught by Elmekies. One would be motivated to do so to allow the element/content in the feed to be prominently displayed.
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites limitation that is similar to claim 7, same rationale of rejection is applied.
12. Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai, in view of Mayfield, US 2022/0353466 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Dai teaches the system of claim 1.
Dai does not explicitly teach wherein the shared content is displayed centered within the unified content feed.
Mayfield teaches the shared content is displayed centered within the unified content feed (i.e., display the share in the center of the display, page 2 paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Dai to display the shared content centered within the unified content feed, as taught by Mayfield, in order to display the shared content in a prominent position (i.e., page 2 paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites limitation that is similar to claim 8, same rationale of rejection is applied.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OANH DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex Mon-Fri 6:00am-5:00pm.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571) 272-4170. 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.
/OANH DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459