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 office action is in response to communication filed 10/23/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination, the rejection cited as stated below.
Double Patenting
2. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
3. Claims 1-5, 8, 10-11, and 13-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of US Patent No. 11,245,936 (hereafter Patent’936).
As to claim 1, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of the independent claim 1 of the instant application are claimed in claim 4 of Patent‘936, i.e., claim 4 of the Patent’936 is more specific. Thus the invention of claim 4 of Patent’936 is in effect a "species" of the "generic" invention of claim 1 of the instant application. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Specifically, claim 4 of Patent’936 discloses a method comprising:
selecting a user profile for a viewing session (see claim 4’s Great-Grandparent claim 1, “identifying a user profile as active at a television receiver based on the user profile being mapped to a current television viewing session”);
determining a confidence value for selecting the user profile, wherein the confidence value is indicative of a likelihood that the user profile selected corresponds to a user participating in the viewing session (Claim 4’s Grandparent claim 2, “determining a confidence value indicative of how likely the user profile identified as active is correct”);
setting the user profile as active for the viewing session (claim 4’s Great-Grandparent claim 1, “identifying a user profile as active at a television receiver based on the user profile being mapped to a current television viewing session);
outputting a video content stream for presentation during the viewing session (claim 4’s Great-Grandparent claim 1, “tracking a plurality of video content items that have been output for presentation while the user profile is active across a plurality of television viewing sessions”);
tracking video content output for presentation while the user profile is active during the viewing session (claim 4’s Great-Grandparent claim 1, “tracking a plurality of video content items that have been output for presentation while the user profile is active across a plurality of television viewing sessions”);
evaluating an insertion rule mapped to a video content item output as part of the video content stream (claim 4’s Great-Grandparent claim 1, “evaluating a set of insertion rules, wherein an insertion rule of the set of insertion rules is mapped to the first video content item and defines a predefined output threshold and a predefined output threshold rate for the first video content item”);
determining that the insertion rule has been satisfied at least partially based on the confidence value (claim 4’s Great-Grandparent claim 1, “determining that the output rate during the time period that the first video content item of the plurality of video content items has been output has met the predefined output threshold rate of the insertion rule for the first video content item for the user profile identified as active”);
selecting an alternative video content item based on the insertion rule having been satisfied (claim 4’s Great-Grandparent claim 1, “selecting an alternative video content item for insertion based on the set of insertion rules and determining that the first video content item has met the predefined output threshold rate for the user profile identified as active”); and
outputting the alternative video content item in place of the video content item in the video content stream (claim 4’s Great-Grandparent claim 1, “outputting, by the television receiver, the television channel stream that includes the alternative video content item”).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 2, claim 4 of Patent’936 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the user profile is based on performing content analysis to determine which user profile from a plurality of user profiles is to be selected based on content being output for presentation (claim 4).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, claim 4 of Patent’936 discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising determining that the confidence value determined based on the content analysis is sufficient, wherein the user profile is set as active based on determining that the confidence value determined based on the content analysis is sufficient (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein. See citation in rejection to claim 1 and claim 2, any confidence value that results in selecting the user profile is considered sufficient).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, claim 4 of Patent’936 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
summing data for a plurality of user profiles, comprising the user profile (claim 4’s parent claim 3, “tracking the plurality of video content items that have been output for presentation at a household level regardless of any user profile”); and
storing the summed data in association with a household profile distinct from the plurality of user profiles (see citation above).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 5, claim 4 of Patent’936 discloses the method of claim 4, wherein determining that the insertion rule has been satisfied is further based on the summed data associated with the household profile (claim 4).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 8, claim 4 of Patent’936 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the user profile is performed by a television receiver configured to be connected with a television (claim 4’s Great-Grandparent claim 1, “identifying a user profile as active at a television receiver based on the user profile being mapped to a current television viewing session”).
As to claim 10, claim 4 of Patent’936 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein evaluating the insertion rule comprises determining a number of times that the video content item has been output for presentation while the user profile is active (Claim 4’s Great-Grandparent claim 1, “for a first video content item of the plurality of video content items, determining a number of times that the first video content item has been output while the user profile is active across the plurality of television viewing sessions”).
As to claim 11, claim 4 of Patent’936 discloses the method of claim 10, wherein tracking the video content item output for presentation comprises tracking output of the video content item across a plurality of viewing sessions comprising the viewing session (Claim 4’s Great-Grandparent claim 1, “tracking a plurality of video content items that have been output for presentation while the user profile is active across a plurality of television viewing sessions”).
4. Claims 6-7, 9, 12, 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of US Patent No. 11,245,936, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Schlack et al (US 2002/0129368).
As to claim 6, Claim 4 of Patent’936 discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein selecting the user profile is based on input from the user. Schlack discloses selecting a user profile based on input from the user ([0136], “The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session. The signature profiles 295 are a compilation of closely related session profiles 294 (are associated with the same user or group of users). The VCPS 290 can identify which user (or group of users) are interacting with the TV by correlating the current session profile 294 with one or more signature profiles 295. The session profile 294 is identified with the signature profile 295 having the highest correlation, as long as it meets a predefined correlation threshold”; [0136] The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session”. Here, the user interaction/characteristics collected for the session profile for that particular viewing session indicates input from the user. See also [0069]., “The invention comprises a method of characterizing or profiling one or more viewer's, by monitoring and processing at the viewer set-top or receiver, each viewer's interactivity (e.g., via a remote control unit) with the set-top receiver, and then generating one or more profiles for each viewer based on one or more of the multitude of interactions of each viewer and on”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 4 of Patent’936 with Schlack. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to take the user interaction into consideration for selecting a user profile (Schlack, [0069]).
As to claim 7, Claim 4 of Patent’936 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the user profile is based on a viewing device being used to output the video content stream for presentation (Schlack, [0069], “The invention comprises a method of characterizing or profiling one or more viewer's, by monitoring and processing at the viewer set-top or receiver, each viewer's interactivity (e.g., via a remote control unit) with the set-top receiver, and then generating one or more profiles for each viewer based on one or more of the multitude of interactions of each viewer and on”; ([0136], “The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session. The signature profiles 295 are a compilation of closely related session profiles 294 (are associated with the same user or group of users). The VCPS 290 can identify which user (or group of users) are interacting with the TV by correlating the current session profile 294 with one or more signature profiles 295. The session profile 294 is identified with the signature profile 295 having the highest correlation”. Here, the user’s interactivity with the TV, hence the TV is based on. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific way to be “based on” therefore Examiner interprets as any way).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 9, Claim 4 of Patent’936 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising:
retrieving, by the television receiver, the alternate video content item from a processor-readable storage medium (Schlack, [0278], “The STB may receive the targeted ads via an ad channel. The ads may be delivered ahead of time and stored on the STB, or be received at approximately the same time as the avail and inserted on the fly”).
As to claim 12, Claim 4 of Patent’936 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the video content item is an advertisement (Schlack, [0277], “If the content is targeted ads, the targeted ads may be inserted in place of the default ads to create a plurality of presentation streams (programs with targeted ads)”).
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 12.
As to claim 19, Claim 4 of Patent’936 in view of Schlack discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the television receiver is configured to retrieve the alternate video content item from the service provider system (Schlock, [0278], “The STB may receive the targeted ads via an ad channel. The ads may be delivered ahead of time and stored on the STB, or be received at approximately the same time as the avail and inserted on the fly”).
5. Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of US Patent No. 11,750,855 (hereafter Patent’855), in view Schlack et al (US 2002/0129368).
As to claim 1, claim 10 of Patent’855 discloses a method comprising:
selecting a user profile for a viewing session (claim 10’s parent claim 7, “activating a user profile of a plurality of user profiles at the television receiver”);
setting the user profile as active for the viewing session (claim 10’s parent claim 7, “activating a user profile of a plurality of user profiles at the television receiver”);
outputting a video content stream for presentation during the viewing session (claim 10’s Grandparent claim 1, “tracking a plurality of video content items that have been output for presentation across a plurality of television viewing sessions, wherein tracking the plurality of video content items comprises: for a first video content item of the plurality of video content items, determining an output rate during a time period at which the first video content item has been output across the plurality of television viewing sessions;”);
tracking video content output for presentation while the user profile is active during the viewing session (see citation in the preceding limitation);
evaluating an insertion rule mapped to a video content item output as part of the video content stream (claim 10’s Grandparent claim 1, “evaluating an insertion rule mapped to the first video content item, wherein the insertion rule defines a predefined output threshold rate for the first video content item”);
selecting an alternative video content item based on the insertion rule having been satisfied (claim 10’s Grandparent claim 1, “selecting an alternative video content item for insertion based on determining that the output rate of the first video content item has met the predefined output threshold rate”); and
outputting the alternative video content item in place of the video content item in the video content stream (claim 10’s Grandparent claim 1, “outputting, by the television receiver, the television channel stream that includes the alternative video content item”).
However, Claim 10 of the Patent’855 does mot expressly disclose determining a confidence value for selecting the user profile, wherein the confidence value is indicative of a likelihood that the user profile selected corresponds to a user participating in the viewing session, or determining that the insertion rule has been satisfied at least partially based on the confidence value. Schlack discloses determining a confidence value for selecting the user profile, wherein the confidence value is indicative of a likelihood that the user profile selected corresponds to a user participating in the viewing session ([0136], “The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session. The signature profiles 295 are a compilation of closely related session profiles 294 (are associated with the same user or group of users). The VCPS 290 can identify which user (or group of users) are interacting with the TV by correlating the current session profile 294 with one or more signature profiles 295. The session profile 294 is identified with the signature profile 295 having the highest correlation, as long as it meets a predefined correlation threshold”, wherein the correlation score is equivalent to a confidence value).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 10 of Patent’855 with Schlack. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to find the highest correlation between a session profile and a signature profile (Schlack, [0136]).
Claim 10 of the Patent’855 in view of Schlack further discloses determining that the insertion rule has been satisfied at least partially based on the confidence value (claim 10’s Grandparent claim 1, “determining that the output rate during the time period that the first video content item has been output has met the predefined output threshold rate of the insertion rule”; Claim 10, “tracking of the plurality of video content items is performed for the user profile”; Schlack, [0136], the user profile is identified based on the confidence level).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 1. Schlack further discloses a television receiver configured to be connected with a television and a service provider system in communication with the television receiver (see Figure 1 and Figure 2A).
As to claim 2, Claim 10 of Patent’855 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the user profile is based on performing content analysis to determine which user profile from a plurality of user profiles is to be selected based on content being output for presentation (claim 10 of Patent’855).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Claim 10 of Patent’855 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising determining that the confidence value determined based on the content analysis is sufficient, wherein the user profile is set as active based on determining that the confidence value determined based on the content analysis is sufficient (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein. See citation in rejection to claim 1 and claim 2, any confidence/correlation value that results in selecting the user profile is considered sufficient).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Claim 10 of Patent’855 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
summing data for a plurality of user profiles, comprising the user profile (Schlack, [0072], “the profiler identifies different viewing sessions, a period of time during which viewership is static and does not change (i.e., a session of one or more specific viewers), based on viewing and other habits and preferences exhibited by the viewer or viewers, and creates session profiles for each session. Signature profiles are created from one or more correlated session profiles, and subsequent session profiles are correlated and matched with existing signature profiles); and
storing the summed data in association with a household profile distinct from the plurality of user profiles (Schlack, [0215], “the VCPS 290 generates and stores viewer and household signature profiles based on one or more session profiles”).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 5, Claim 10 of Patent’855 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 4, wherein determining that the insertion rule has been satisfied is further based on the summed data associated with the household profile (Schlack, [0198], “When the identity (or profile) of a specific viewer or viewers that are watching during any given session can be identified and distinguished from other potential viewers (or profiles), targeted and custom content, including ads, can be delivered to those viewers. Such targeting will be much more efficient and accurate than if the targeting was based solely on household demographics or on a household profile” therefore the targeting is based on both individual viewer and household profile. See [0215], “In a preferred embodiment, the VCPS 290 generates and stores viewer and household signature profiles based on one or more session profiles.”).).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 6, Claim 10 of Patent’855 discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein selecting the user profile is based on input from the user.
Schlack discloses selecting a user profile based on input from the user ([0136], “The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session. The signature profiles 295 are a compilation of closely related session profiles 294 (are associated with the same user or group of users). The VCPS 290 can identify which user (or group of users) are interacting with the TV by correlating the current session profile 294 with one or more signature profiles 295. The session profile 294 is identified with the signature profile 295 having the highest correlation, as long as it meets a predefined correlation threshold”; [0136] The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session”. Here, the user interaction/characteristics collected for the session profile for that particular viewing session indicates input from the user. See also [0069]., “The invention comprises a method of characterizing or profiling one or more viewer's, by monitoring and processing at the viewer set-top or receiver, each viewer's interactivity (e.g., via a remote control unit) with the set-top receiver, and then generating one or more profiles for each viewer based on one or more of the multitude of interactions of each viewer and on”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 10 of Patent’855 with Schlack. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to take the user interaction into consideration for selecting a user profile (Schlack, [0069]).
As to claim 7, Claim 10 of Patent’855 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the user profile is based on a viewing device being used to output the video content stream for presentation (Schlack, [0069], “The invention comprises a method of characterizing or profiling one or more viewer's, by monitoring and processing at the viewer set-top or receiver, each viewer's interactivity (e.g., via a remote control unit) with the set-top receiver, and then generating one or more profiles for each viewer based on one or more of the multitude of interactions of each viewer and on”; ([0136], “The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session. The signature profiles 295 are a compilation of closely related session profiles 294 (are associated with the same user or group of users). The VCPS 290 can identify which user (or group of users) are interacting with the TV by correlating the current session profile 294 with one or more signature profiles 295. The session profile 294 is identified with the signature profile 295 having the highest correlation”. Here, the user’s interactivity with the TV, hence the TV is based on. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific way to be “based on” therefore Examiner interprets as any way).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Claim 10 of Patent’855 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the user profile is performed by a television receiver configured to be connected with a television (Schlack, Figure 1 and Figure 2A; [0069], “The invention comprises a method of characterizing or profiling one or more viewer's, by monitoring and processing at the viewer set-top or receiver).
As to claim 9, Claim 10 of Patent’855 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising:
retrieving, by the television receiver, the alternate video content item from a processor-readable storage medium (Schlack, [0278], “The STB may receive the targeted ads via an ad channel. The ads may be delivered ahead of time and stored on the STB, or be received at approximately the same time as the avail and inserted on the fly”).
As to claim 12, Claim 10 of Patent’855 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the video content item is an advertisement (Schlack, [0277], “If the content is targeted ads, the targeted ads may be inserted in place of the default ads to create a plurality of presentation streams (programs with targeted ads)”).
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 12.
As to claim 19, Claim 10 of Patent’855 in view of Schlack discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the television receiver is configured to retrieve the alternate video content item from the service provider system (Schlock, [0278], “The STB may receive the targeted ads via an ad channel. The ads may be delivered ahead of time and stored on the STB, or be received at approximately the same time as the avail and inserted on the fly”).
6. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claim 10 of Patent’885 in view of Schlack, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller (US 2017/0169464).
As to claim 10, Claim 10 of Patent’885 in view of Schlack discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose determining a number of times that the video content item has been output for presentation while the user profile is active. Miller discloses determining a number of times that a video content item has been output for presentation while a user profile is active ([0073]-[0074], “television… The processor carries out a routine check (i.e. every pre-defined period of time) on the current value of the viewing counter (step 240). Once the value of the viewing counter is found to be equal to the pre-determined value of the frequency cap, the processor will associate a flag with the specific user's record. That flag is used for preventing future display of the specific advertisement to that specific user at the websites to which that specific user will enter (step 250), or optionally, will select a replacement advertisement (instead of the specific advertisement), one that may preferably also match the user's profile, that may be displayed to that user once he accesses websites where the advertisement may be displayed, or be incorporated in the IPTV broadcasts that are conveyed to the IP address associated with that user”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 10 of Patent’885 in view of Schlack with Miller. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to cap frequency of displaying a specific advertisement (Miller, [0074]).
As to claim 11, Claim 10 of Patent’885-Schlack-Miller discloses the method of claim 10, wherein tracking the video content item output for presentation comprises tracking output of the video content item across a plurality of viewing sessions comprising the viewing session (Schlack, [0072], “the profiler identifies different viewing sessions, a period of time during which viewership is static and does not change (i.e., a session of one or more specific viewers), based on viewing and other habits and preferences exhibited by the viewer or viewers, and creates session profiles for each session. Signature profiles are created from one or more correlated session profiles, and subsequent session profiles are correlated and matched with existing signature profiles”).
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of US Patent No. 12,177,499 (hereafter Patent’499), in view Schlack et al (US 2002/0129368).
As to claim 1, claim 2 of Patent’499 discloses a method comprising:
selecting a user profile for a viewing session (claim 2, “prior to tracking the video content item output for presentation, activating a user profile of a plurality of user profiles”);
setting the user profile as active for the viewing session (claim 2, “prior to tracking the video content item output for presentation, activating a user profile of a plurality of user profiles”);
outputting a video content stream for presentation during the viewing session (claim 2’s Parent claim 1, “tracking a video content item that is output for presentation”);
tracking video content output for presentation while the user profile is active during the viewing session (Claim 2, “tracking of a plurality of video content items, which comprises the video content item, is performed for the user profile”);
evaluating an insertion rule mapped to a video content item output as part of the video content stream (claim 2’s Parent claim 1, “evaluating an insertion rule mapped to the video content item…streaming content viewer”);
selecting an alternative video content item based on the insertion rule having been satisfied (claim 2’s Parent claim 1, “selecting an alternative video content item for insertion based on determining that the output rate of the first 10 video content item has met the predefined output threshold rate”); and
outputting the alternative video content item in place of the video content item in the video content stream (claim 2’s Parent claim 1, “outputting, by the television receiver, the television channel stream that includes the alternative video content item”).
However, Claim 2 of the Patent’499 does mot expressly disclose determining a confidence value for selecting the user profile, wherein the confidence value is indicative of a likelihood that the user profile selected corresponds to a user participating in the viewing session, or determining that the insertion rule has been satisfied at least partially based on the confidence value. Schlack discloses determining a confidence value for selecting the user profile, wherein the confidence value is indicative of a likelihood that the user profile selected corresponds to a user participating in the viewing session ([0136], “The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session. The signature profiles 295 are a compilation of closely related session profiles 294 (are associated with the same user or group of users). The VCPS 290 can identify which user (or group of users) are interacting with the TV by correlating the current session profile 294 with one or more signature profiles 295. The session profile 294 is identified with the signature profile 295 having the highest correlation, as long as it meets a predefined correlation threshold”, wherein the correlation score is equivalent to a confidence value).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 2 of Patent’499 with Schlack. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to find the highest correlation between a session profile and a signature profile (Schlack, [0136]).
Claim 2 of the Patent’499 in view of Schlack further discloses determining that the insertion rule has been satisfied at least partially based on the confidence value (claim 10’s Grandparent claim 1, “determining that the output rate during the time period that the first video content item has been output has met the predefined output threshold rate of the insertion rule”; Claim 10, “tracking of the plurality of video content items is performed for the user profile”; Schlack, [0136], the user profile is identified based on the confidence level).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 1. Schlack further discloses a television receiver configured to be connected with a television and a service provider system in communication with the television receiver (see Figure 1 and Figure 2A).
As to claim 2, Claim 2 of Patent’499 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the user profile is based on performing content analysis to determine which user profile from a plurality of user profiles is to be selected based on content being output for presentation (Schlack, [0136], “The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session. The signature profiles 295 are a compilation of closely related session profiles 294 (are associated with the same user or group of users). The VCPS 290 can identify which user (or group of users) are interacting with the TV by correlating the current session profile 294 with one or more signature profiles 295. The session profile 294 is identified with the signature profile 295 having the highest correlation, as long as it meets a predefined correlation threshold”).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Claim 2 of Patent’499 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising determining that the confidence value determined based on the content analysis is sufficient, wherein the user profile is set as active based on determining that the confidence value determined based on the content analysis is sufficient (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein. See citation in rejection to claim 1 and claim 2, any confidence/correlation value that results in selecting the user profile is considered sufficient).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Claim 2 of Patent’499 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
summing data for a plurality of user profiles, comprising the user profile (Schlack, [0072], “the profiler identifies different viewing sessions, a period of time during which viewership is static and does not change (i.e., a session of one or more specific viewers), based on viewing and other habits and preferences exhibited by the viewer or viewers, and creates session profiles for each session. Signature profiles are created from one or more correlated session profiles, and subsequent session profiles are correlated and matched with existing signature profiles); and
storing the summed data in association with a household profile distinct from the plurality of user profiles (Schlack, [0215], “the VCPS 290 generates and stores viewer and household signature profiles based on one or more session profiles”).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 5, Claim 2 of Patent’499 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 4, wherein determining that the insertion rule has been satisfied is further based on the summed data associated with the household profile (Schlack, [0198], “When the identity (or profile) of a specific viewer or viewers that are watching during any given session can be identified and distinguished from other potential viewers (or profiles), targeted and custom content, including ads, can be delivered to those viewers. Such targeting will be much more efficient and accurate than if the targeting was based solely on household demographics or on a household profile” therefore the targeting is based on both individual viewer and household profile. See [0215], “In a preferred embodiment, the VCPS 290 generates and stores viewer and household signature profiles based on one or more session profiles.”).).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 6, Claim 2 of Patent’499 discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein selecting the user profile is based on input from the user.
Schlack discloses selecting a user profile based on input from the user ([0136], “The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session. The signature profiles 295 are a compilation of closely related session profiles 294 (are associated with the same user or group of users). The VCPS 290 can identify which user (or group of users) are interacting with the TV by correlating the current session profile 294 with one or more signature profiles 295. The session profile 294 is identified with the signature profile 295 having the highest correlation, as long as it meets a predefined correlation threshold”; [0136] The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session”. Here, the user interaction/characteristics collected for the session profile for that particular viewing session indicates input from the user. See also [0069]., “The invention comprises a method of characterizing or profiling one or more viewer's, by monitoring and processing at the viewer set-top or receiver, each viewer's interactivity (e.g., via a remote control unit) with the set-top receiver, and then generating one or more profiles for each viewer based on one or more of the multitude of interactions of each viewer and on”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 10 of Patent’855 with Schlack. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to take the user interaction into consideration for selecting a user profile (Schlack, [0069]).
As to claim 7, Claim 2 of Patent’499 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the user profile is based on a viewing device being used to output the video content stream for presentation (Schlack, [0069], “The invention comprises a method of characterizing or profiling one or more viewer's, by monitoring and processing at the viewer set-top or receiver, each viewer's interactivity (e.g., via a remote control unit) with the set-top receiver, and then generating one or more profiles for each viewer based on one or more of the multitude of interactions of each viewer and on”; ([0136], “The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session. The signature profiles 295 are a compilation of closely related session profiles 294 (are associated with the same user or group of users). The VCPS 290 can identify which user (or group of users) are interacting with the TV by correlating the current session profile 294 with one or more signature profiles 295. The session profile 294 is identified with the signature profile 295 having the highest correlation”. Here, the user’s interactivity with the TV, hence the TV is based on. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific way to be “based on” therefore Examiner interprets as any way).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Claim 2 of Patent’499 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the user profile is performed by a television receiver configured to be connected with a television (Schlack, Figure 1 and Figure 2A; [0069], “The invention comprises a method of characterizing or profiling one or more viewer's, by monitoring and processing at the viewer set-top or receiver).
As to claim 9, Claim 2 of Patent’499 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising:
retrieving, by the television receiver, the alternate video content item from a processor-readable storage medium (Schlack, [0278], “The STB may receive the targeted ads via an ad channel. The ads may be delivered ahead of time and stored on the STB, or be received at approximately the same time as the avail and inserted on the fly”).
As to claim 10, Claim 2 of Patent’499 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, wherein evaluating the insertion rule comprises determining a number of times that the video content item has been output for presentation while the user profile is active (Claim 2 of Patent’499).
As to claim 11, Claim 2 of Patent’499 -Schlack-discloses the method of claim 10, wherein tracking the video content item output for presentation comprises tracking output of the video content item across a plurality of viewing sessions comprising the viewing session (Claim 2 of Patent’499).
As to claim 12, Claim 2 of Patent’499 in view of Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the video content item is an advertisement (Schlack, [0277], “If the content is targeted ads, the targeted ads may be inserted in place of the default ads to create a plurality of presentation streams (programs with targeted ads)”).
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 12.
As to claim 19, Claim 2 of Patent’499 in view of Schlack discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the television receiver is configured to retrieve the alternate video content item from the service provider system (Schlock, [0278], “The STB may receive the targeted ads via an ad channel. The ads may be delivered ahead of time and stored on the STB, or be received at approximately the same time as the avail and inserted on the fly”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites “determining that the confidence value determined based on the content analysis is sufficient, wherein the user profile is set as active based on determining that the confidence value determined based on the content analysis is sufficient.” It is unclear what is considered “sufficient” lacking a readily ascertainable criterion. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner interprets as any criterion. Claims 15 is similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
12. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
13. Claims 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schlack et al (US 2002/0129368).
As to claim 1, Schlack discloses a method comprising:
selecting a user profile for a viewing session (abstract, “Automatically and reliably, detecting or inferring at a particular time, which specific individual or individuals, are actually interacting with the TV in household comprising more than one individual. Such viewer identification and profile generation can be used to facilitate the delivery of targeted content, including targeted advertising”);
determining a confidence value for selecting the user profile, wherein the confidence value is indicative of a likelihood that the user profile selected corresponds to a user participating in the viewing session (abstract and [0136], “The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session. The signature profiles 295 are a compilation of closely related session profiles 294 (are associated with the same user or group of users). The VCPS 290 can identify which user (or group of users) are interacting with the TV by correlating the current session profile 294 with one or more signature profiles 295. The session profile 294 is identified with the signature profile 295 having the highest correlation, as long as it meets a predefined correlation threshold”, wherein the correlation score is equivalent to a confidence value);
setting the user profile as active for the viewing session (see citation above, abstract and [0136], wherein the identified session profile having the highest correlation to a signature profile is set as an active corresponding to an active user/viewer for the viewing session);
outputting a video content stream for presentation during the viewing session ([0071], “the profiling agent is resident at a viewer's receiver and is responsible for profiling a single household, and distinct individual members of that household. The set-top box profiler monitors the viewing behavior and other receiver interactivity of the viewers including their viewing preferences and utilizing data about programming viewed or not viewed, derives characteristics about and generates profiles of the household and of individual viewers within the household. In a preferred embodiment, the profiles are comprised of profile categories, including the categories of preferred programs, preferred networks, viewing duration, channel change frequency, and holding factor per program or program category. The program data may be delivered to the set-top box periodically (e.g., on a carousel) or may be delivered with the video (e.g., in the VBI or in the PSI)”);
tracking video content output for presentation while the user profile is active during the viewing session (see citation above, [0071], e.g., “the viewing preferences…data about programming viewed…video”; [0136], “The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session. The signature profiles 295 are a compilation of closely related session profiles 294 (are associated with the same user or group of users). The VCPS 290 can identify which user (or group of users) are interacting with the TV by correlating the current session profile 294 with one or more signature profiles 295);
evaluating an insertion rule mapped to a video content item output as part of the video content stream ([0277], “The groups may be formed and the advertisements targeted thereto, or ad profiles defining characteristics about the target market of the ad are created and the users are grouped to these profiles. As discussed above, each of the groups may receive material targeted for them. In one embodiment, everybody will receive all content and will select the appropriate content for display based on matching the group number associated with the content and the group number of the STB, or particular user or group of users interacting with the STB. In a preferred embodiment, each STB will receive only the content associated with it based on what group it falls in, thus saving bandwidth. If the content is targeted ads, the targeted ads may be inserted in place of the default ads to create a plurality of presentation streams (programs with targeted ads)”; [0278], “In an alternative embodiment, the STE will insert specific content (i.e., targeted ads) locally. Thus, each subscriber may, in effect, have ads targeted directly to them…The selection may be made based on group designations or may be made by comparing the ad profile with the signature profiles on the STE”. Here, the matching targeted particular user or group of users interacting with the STB for inserting the target ad is an insertion rule, by comparing/correlating the ad profile with the respective signature profile correlated with the user/session profile);
determining that the insertion rule has been satisfied at least partially based on the confidence value (see above, the target user is identified via correlating the session profile to signature profile. See also [0198], “profiling viewers on a session-by-session basis and for differentiating viewers in a household of multiple viewers. When the identity (or profile) of a specific viewer or viewers that are watching during any given session can be identified and distinguished from other potential viewers (or profiles), targeted and custom content, including ads, can be delivered to those viewers.” Because determining the target ad insertion rule to be satisfied for the respective target viewer/user is based on matching the ad profile to the respective signature profile which is matched to the identified target viewer/user based on highest correlation/confidence value between the signature profile and session profile, the determining satisfaction of the insertion rule therefore is at least partially based on the highest correlation/confidence value. See highest correlation value as cited and explained in limitation 2. It is to be noted that the claimed limitation does not require a specific way to “at least partially based on” therefore Examiner interprets as any way to “at least partially based on”);
selecting an alternative video content item based on the insertion rule having been satisfied (see citation above, wherein selecting an ad to replace the default ad is based on correlated signature profiles, see also [0277]-[0278]); and
outputting the alternative video content item in place of the video content item in the video content stream (see citation above, replacing the default ad with the selected ad. See also [0277]-[0278]).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 1. Schlack further discloses a television receiver configured to be connected with a television and a service provider system in communication with the television receiver (see Figure 1 and Figure 2A).
As to claim 2, Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the user profile is based on performing content analysis to determine which user profile from a plurality of user profiles is to be selected based on content being output for presentation (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., [0136], “The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session. The signature profiles 295 are a compilation of closely related session profiles 294 (are associated with the same user or group of users). The VCPS 290 can identify which user (or group of users) are interacting with the TV by correlating the current session profile 294 with one or more signature profiles 295. The session profile 294 is identified with the signature profile 295 having the highest correlation, as long as it meets a predefined correlation threshold”).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Schlack discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising determining that the confidence value determined based on the content analysis is sufficient, wherein the user profile is set as active based on determining that the confidence value determined based on the content analysis is sufficient (see 112 rejection above and Examiner’s interpretation therein. See citation in rejection to claim 1 and claim 2, wherein highest correlation can be considered “sufficient”).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
summing data for a plurality of user profiles, comprising the user profile ([0072], “the profiler identifies different viewing sessions, a period of time during which viewership is static and does not change (i.e., a session of one or more specific viewers), based on viewing and other habits and preferences exhibited by the viewer or viewers, and creates session profiles for each session. Signature profiles are created from one or more correlated session profiles, and subsequent session profiles are correlated and matched with existing signature profiles); and
storing the summed data in association with a household profile distinct from the plurality of user profiles ([0215], “the VCPS 290 generates and stores viewer and household signature profiles based on one or more session profiles”).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 5, Schlack discloses the method of claim 4, wherein determining that the insertion rule has been satisfied is further based on the summed data associated with the household profile ([0198], “When the identity (or profile) of a specific viewer or viewers that are watching during any given session can be identified and distinguished from other potential viewers (or profiles), targeted and custom content, including ads, can be delivered to those viewers. Such targeting will be much more efficient and accurate than if the targeting was based solely on household demographics or on a household profile” therefore the targeting is based on both individual viewer and household profile. See [0215], “In a preferred embodiment, the VCPS 290 generates and stores viewer and household signature profiles based on one or more session profiles.”).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 6, Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the user profile is based on input from the user ([0136], “The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session. The signature profiles 295 are a compilation of closely related session profiles 294 (are associated with the same user or group of users). The VCPS 290 can identify which user (or group of users) are interacting with the TV by correlating the current session profile 294 with one or more signature profiles 295. The session profile 294 is identified with the signature profile 295 having the highest correlation, as long as it meets a predefined correlation threshold”; [0136] The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session”. Here, the user interaction/characteristics collected for the session profile for that particular viewing session indicates input from the user. See also [0069]., “The invention comprises a method of characterizing or profiling one or more viewer's, by monitoring and processing at the viewer set-top or receiver, each viewer's interactivity (e.g., via a remote control unit) with the set-top receiver, and then generating one or more profiles for each viewer based on one or more of the multitude of interactions of each viewer and on”).
As to claim 7, Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the user profile is based on a viewing device being used to output the video content stream for presentation ([0069], “The invention comprises a method of characterizing or profiling one or more viewer's, by monitoring and processing at the viewer set-top or receiver, each viewer's interactivity (e.g., via a remote control unit) with the set-top receiver, and then generating one or more profiles for each viewer based on one or more of the multitude of interactions of each viewer and on”; ([0136], “The session profiles 294 identify characteristics about the user (or group of users) for that particular viewing session. The signature profiles 295 are a compilation of closely related session profiles 294 (are associated with the same user or group of users). The VCPS 290 can identify which user (or group of users) are interacting with the TV by correlating the current session profile 294 with one or more signature profiles 295. The session profile 294 is identified with the signature profile 295 having the highest correlation”. Here, the user’s interactivity with the TV, hence the TV is based on. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific way to be “based on” therefore Examiner interprets as any way).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the user profile is performed by a television receiver configured to be connected with a television (Figure 1 and Figure 2A; [0069], “The invention comprises a method of characterizing or profiling one or more viewer's, by monitoring and processing at the viewer set-top or receiver”).
As to claim 9, Schlack discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising:
retrieving, by the television receiver, the alternate video content item from a processor-readable storage medium ([0278], “The STB may receive the targeted ads via an ad channel. The ads may be delivered ahead of time and stored on the STB, or be received at approximately the same time as the avail and inserted on the fly”).
As to claim 12, Schlack discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the video content item is an advertisement ([0277], “If the content is targeted ads, the targeted ads may be inserted in place of the default ads to create a plurality of presentation streams (programs with targeted ads)”).
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 12.
As to claim 19, Schlack discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the television receiver is configured to retrieve the alternate video content item from the service provider system ([0278], “The STB may receive the targeted ads via an ad channel. The ads may be delivered ahead of time and stored on the STB, or be received at approximately the same time as the avail and inserted on the fly”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
15. 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 of this title, 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.
16. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
17. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlack, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller (US 2017/0169464).
As to claim 10, Schlack discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose determining a number of times that the video content item has been output for presentation while the user profile is active. Miller discloses determining a number of times that a video content item has been output for presentation while a user profile is active ([0073]-[0074], “television… The processor carries out a routine check (i.e. every pre-defined period of time) on the current value of the viewing counter (step 240). Once the value of the viewing counter is found to be equal to the pre-determined value of the frequency cap, the processor will associate a flag with the specific user's record. That flag is used for preventing future display of the specific advertisement to that specific user at the websites to which that specific user will enter (step 250), or optionally, will select a replacement advertisement (instead of the specific advertisement), one that may preferably also match the user's profile, that may be displayed to that user once he accesses websites where the advertisement may be displayed, or be incorporated in the IPTV broadcasts that are conveyed to the IP address associated with that user”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Schlack with Miller. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to cap frequency of displaying a specific advertisement (Miller, [0074]).
As to claim 11, Schlack-Miller discloses the method of claim 10, wherein tracking the video content item output for presentation comprises tracking output of the video content item across a plurality of viewing sessions comprising the viewing session (Schlack, [0072], “the profiler identifies different viewing sessions, a period of time during which viewership is static and does not change (i.e., a session of one or more specific viewers), based on viewing and other habits and preferences exhibited by the viewer or viewers, and creates session profiles for each session. Signature profiles are created from one or more correlated session profiles, and subsequent session profiles are correlated and matched with existing signature profiles”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/HUA FAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights