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 .
Preliminary Amendment
According to preliminary amendment filed 01/07/2025, claim 1 has been cancelled. Claims 2-21 have been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claims 3-11 directly or indirectly depend on cancelled claim 1. The boundaries of the claims are unknown. It is interpreted as best understood that these claims indirectly or directly depend on claim 2.
Claims 3 and 13, each recites the limitation “the notification” in line 9 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-7, 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 20180288490) in view of Clasen et al. (US 11,558,672).
Note: all documents that are directly or indirectly incorporated by their entireties in Thomas (see paragraphs 0123, 0125, 0128, 0130, 0150, 0158) including (20100153885 -referred to as Yates), (6756997-referred to as Ward), US 7761892 (referred to as E892), U.S 8046801 (referred to as E801) are treated as part of the specification of Thomas (see for example, MPEP 2163.07 b).
Regarding claim 2, Thomas discloses a method comprising:
receiving user interface feedback during output of a recommendation content item via a first launchable application running on a user device, wherein the first launchable application is configured to receive streaming data over a network exclusively from a first streaming service provider server system, wherein the recommendation content item indicates a target content item available via a second launchable application running on the user device, wherein the second launchable application is configured to receive streaming data over the network exclusively from a second streaming service provider server system (receiving a user selection/feedback of a content item/listing on user interface during output of a recommendation item based on user preference(s) via a first launchable/selectable program guide application running on a user device (1002/1004/1006), wherein the first program guide application or application associated with a channel is configured to receive streaming data of a content item/program over a network connected to a media guidance source 1018 or a content source/provider/channel exclusively from a first content provider/source for the program guide or for the content item/listing, wherein the recommendation content item of a program guide/listing indicates a target content item of a program available via a second launchable application such as Internet application, VOD application, local application, or application for another channel/source running on the user device to receive data stream of for another content item or another portion of content item over the network exclusively from another source such as another content provider/source, VOD source, local source, etc. – see include, but are not limited to, figures 16-7, 10, 12, 14-17, paragraphs 0003-0004, 0021-0022, 0033, 0038, 0111, 0122, 0127-0128, 0155, 0163; Yates: figures 4, 8, 11-13, paragraphs 0114-0115; Ward: col. 28, lines 15-52, col. 29, lines 1-39; E801: col. 29, line 59-col. 30, line 67);
determining, based at least in part on the user interface feedback, that the user interface feedback is positive toward the target content item (determining, based at least in part of the user selection of the program listing/portion of content of recommended content, that user made a selection on the commended content– see include, but are not limited to, figures 1-2, 6-7, 11, 16-17, paragraphs 0024, 0119, 0232, 0234; Yates: figures 4, 8, 11-13; Ward: col. 28, lines 15-52, col. 29, lines 1-39; E892: figure 5);
based at least in part on the determining that the user interface feedback is positive toward the target content item: identifying, by control circuitry, the second launchable application, wherein the second launchable application is identified based at least in part on at least a portion of the recommendation content item or metadata associated with the recommendation content item (based at least in part on the determining that user made a selection of the item on the customized list: identifying/searching, by the control/processing circuitry, the second application to access the selected content, wherein the second application associated with the selected content is identified based at least in part of metadata or portion of the recommended content item/entity/program title, etc. associated with the recommendation content item – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1-7, 9, 14-17, paragraphs 0007, 0012, 0089, 0097, 0115-0116, 0174, 0210, 0233; Yates: figures 4, 8, 11-13, paragraphs 0043, 0114-0115; Ward: col. 28, lines 15-52, col. 29, lines 1-39; E801: col. 29, line 59-col. 30, line 67);
storing in a master list: (a) an indication of the user interface feedback received during the output of the recommendation content item, (b) an identifier of the target content item, and (c) information of the second launchable application (storing/saving in database with custom presentation/recording list: (a) an indication of selection/message received during the output of the recommendation item, (b) an identifier/id of the target content item such as program name/entity, and (c) an information of second application associated with the other selected content such as advertisement, web page, other source, etc. – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1-2, 4-6, 17, paragraphs 0100-0103, 0106-0107, 0111, 0117, 0127, 0153, 0155, 0174, 0176; Yates: figures 4, 8, 11-13, paragraphs 0043, 0114-0115; Ward: col. 28, lines 15-52, col. 29, lines 1-39; E892; figures 4-5); and
displaying, via a user interface, the master list (displaying, via a user interface, a custom presentation/recording list based on selections/usage of users – see include, but are not limited to, figures 5-8, paragraphs 0115, 0117, 0122, 0124, 0127; E892: figures 5, 18+; Yate: figures 6-9, paragraphs 0111, 0114-0115) ;
based at least in part on user interface selection of the identifier of the target content item displayed as part of the master list, launching the second launchable application (based at least in part of user interface selection of identifier/title/name of an entity/advertisement of the content item displayed as part of the custom presentation/personalized program list, starting or beginning the second application associated with the selected item/link – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1, 5-8, 16-17, paragraphs 0065, 0070, 0111, 0122-0124, 0163; Yates: figures 4, 9; E801: col. 29, line 59-col. 30, line 67) ; and
generating for play, on the user device, the target content item in the second launchable application by retrieving, over the network, the target content item from the second streaming service provider server system (generating for playing on the user device the selected program by retrieving over the network, the selected content item from the second streaming service provider/content provider – see include, but are not limited to, figures 7-8, paragraphs 0111, 0121-0122, 0150, 0155; E801: col. 29, line 59-col. 30, line 67).
Thomas does not explicitly disclose information of secondary launchable application comprises an identifier of the second launchable application.
Additionally and/or alternatively, Clasen discloses storing in a master list: (a) an indication of a feedback received during the output of the recommendation content item , (b) an identifier of the target content item, and (c) information of the second launchable application (storing in standard format/list: an indication such as timestamp of a feedback received during output of content item, an identifier/name of target/suggested content item/program, and application identifier such as Application A, application B, etc. of second launchable application – see include, but are not limited to, col. 3, line25-col. 4, line 62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas with the teaching including an application identifier of secondary application in a list as taught by Clasen in order to yield predictable result of allowing second application to be identified easily for communicating with other application and providing relevant information to user (see col. 1, lines 28-42).
Regarding claim 3, Thomas in view of Clasen discloses the method further comprising: capturing, via a camera, user gesture data (captures user gesture using a camera implemented as part of the user input interface – see Thomas: paragraphs 0232, 0162, 0245);
determining, the user interface feedback based at least in part on the captured user gesture data (determining, the user interface feedback/selection based at least in part on the capture user gesture data in direction/selection of the program/portion or entity being displayed – see include, but are not limited to, Thomas: figures 1-2,6, 15-17, paragraphs 0162, 0187, 0232, 0245);
generating a plurality of segments from the recommendation content item, each segment of the plurality of segments being associated with metadata that identifies a content type and a second identifier of the segment (generating a plurality of segments/portion from the recommendation content item of a program or entity, each segment/portion of the plurality of portions being associated with metadata that identifies a content type/program/entity and a second identifier(portion ID) of the segment/portion– see include, but are not limited to, Thomas: figures 1-2,4-6, 15-17, paragraphs 0162, 0187, 0232, 0245);
generating for display a request to provide additional user feedback (generating for display a request to provide additional user feedback regarding detail description, other segments/sub-portions – see include, but are not limited to, Thomas: figures 1,6-8, 15-17, paragraphs 0162, 0111, 0116-0117, 0187, 0232, 0245);
based at least in part on the notification, causing capture, via the camera, a second user gesture during output of the segment of the plurality of segments of the first content item on the user device (based at least in part on the display/selection, causing capture, via the camera/capture device, a second user selection of additional portion/sub-portion during output of the segment/portion of the plurality of segment of the first content item/entity on the user device see include, but are not limited to, Thomas: figures 1,6-8, 15-17, paragraphs 0111, 0116-0117, 0162, 0187, 0232, 0245);
parsing, by the control circuitry, second user gesture data based at least in part on the captured second user gesture to identify a second feedback for the segment of the plurality of segments; and based at least in part on the identifying that the second feedback is positive, storing in the master list the identifier of the segment of the plurality of segments of the first content item (parsing/analyzing, by the control circuity/processing circuitry, second or any subsequent user gesture/selection data based on user selection of the subsequent segments/sub-portion of content being displayed and based on the selection, storing in the custom presentation/customized list the identifier/portion ID of the segment of the plurality of the first content item - see similar discussion storing user interface feedback in claim 2 and see include, but are not limited to, Thomas: figures 1-8, 15-17, paragraphs 0107, 0111, 0127-0128, 0153, 0162, 0187, 0232, 0245; Ward: col. 28, lines 15-52, col. 29, lines 1-39; Clasen: figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Thomas in view of Clasen discloses the target content item is associated with a product (program/entity/advertisement is associated with a product– see include, but are not limited to figures 6-9, paragraphs 0124, 0149; Yates: paragraphs 0111, 0114-0115; E801: figure 25); and
the method further comprises:
retrieving product information associated with the product; and
based at least in part on the determining that the user interface feedback is positive toward the target content item, adding the retrieved product information to a shopping list for purchase (retrieving information associated with a product such as an item/program for displaying to the user and in response to user selection to purchase/order the item/program, adding the information of the selected item to the list for purchase/pay per view and/or pay to record – see include, but are not limited to, Thomas: paragraphs 0124, 0149; E892: figures 5, 12b, 14c, 15b, 18f; E801: col. 30, lines 18-29; Yates: paragraphs 0111, 0114-0115)
Regarding claim 5, Thomas in view of Clasen discloses the method wherein the target content item is one of video content, audio content, game content, interactive content or textual content (see for example, figures 1, 6-8, paragraphs 0060, 0092, 0123, 0166) .
Regarding claim 6, Thomas in view of Clasen discloses the method further comprising: based at least in part on the determining that the user interface feedback is positive toward the target content item: accessing the second streaming service provider server system (accessing second streaming service such as second content provider NBC, HBO, webcast provider, Internet provider, etc. – see include, but is not limited to, figures 1, 7-8, paragraphs 0121, 0150, 0155, 0243); and
determining, that the target content item is currently available from the second streaming service provider server system; and
based at least in part on the determining that the target content item is currently available from the second streaming service provider server system, performing the displaying of the master list (determining that content item is currently available from second content provider, and based on the determining, displaying of custom presentation/personalized program guide list – see include, but are not limited to, Thomas: figures 1, 6-8, paragraphs 0121, 0124-0125, 0127, 0144, 0150, 0155, 0243, 0248; E892: figure 18f; Yates: figures 4, 6, 9).
Regarding claim 7, Thomas in view of Clasen discloses the method, wherein the target content item is on-demand content, recorded content or a live content (see include, but are not limited to, Thomas: figure 7, paragraphs 0121, 0129, 0150).
Regarding claim 12, limitations of a system that correspond to the limitations of method in claim 2 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 2. In particular, Thomas in view of Clasen discloses a system (see Thomas: figures 9-10) comprising:
input/output circuitry (e.g., including user input interface 910, display, figure 7, paragraph 0136-0137) configured to: receive user interface feedback during output of a recommendation content item via a first launchable application running on a user device, wherein the first launchable application is configured to receive streaming data over a network exclusively from a first streaming service provider server system, wherein the recommendation content item indicates a target content item available via a second launchable application running on the user device, wherein the second launchable application is configured to receive streaming data over the network exclusively from a second streaming service provider server system; and
control circuitry (control circuitry 904) configured to:
determine, based at least in part on the user interface feedback, that the user interface feedback is positive toward the target content item;
based at least in part on the determining that the user interface feedback is positive toward the target content item:
identify the second launchable application, wherein the second launchable application is identified based at least in part on at least a portion of the recommendation content item or metadata associated with the recommendation content item;
store in a master list: (a) an indication of the user interface feedback received during the output of the recommendation content item, (b) an identifier of the target content item, and (c) an identifier of the second launchable application; and display, via a user interface, the master list;
based at least in part on user interface selection of the identifier of the target content item displayed as part of the master list, launching the second launchable application; and
generate for play, on the user device, the target content item in the second launchable application by retrieving, over the network, the target content item from the second streaming service provider server system (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 2 and Thomas: figures 6-9, paragraphs 0061, 0132- 0136; Clasen: figures 1-2, 7, 9).
Regarding claims 13-17, the additional limitations of the system that correspond to the additional limitations of the method in claims 3-7 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claims 3-7.
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 20180288490) in view of Clasen et al. (US 11,558,672) and further in view of Ramachandra Iyer (US 20210287442).
Regarding claim 8, Thomas in view of Clasen discloses the method further comprising: capturing, via a camera, user gesture data; and determining, the user interface feedback based at least in part on the captured user gesture data (see include, but are not limited to, Thomas: figures 1-2,6, 15-17, paragraphs 0162, 0187, 0232, 0245 and see also discussion in the rejection of claim 3 above). Thomas does not explicitly disclose the user gesture comprises one or more of a hand gesture of thumbs-up, a hand gesture of thumbs-down, a hand gesture of a heart, movement of a hand in a direction, movement of a finger, movement of an arm, movement of a palm of a hand, a first hand or a second hand of the user.
Ramachandra discloses user gesture comprises one or more of a hand gesture, movement of a hand in a direction, movement of a palm of a hand (as result of hand movement), a first and or a second hand of the user (see for example, paragraph 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas with the teaching including user gesture comprises one or more of hand gesture, hand movement as taught by Ramachandra in order to yield predictable result of improving convenience for generating content in real-time using gestures based on hand gesture (see para. 0023).
Regarding claim 9, Thomas in view of Clasen and Ramachandra discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: determining, using a machine learning model, an intent of the user based on the user gesture during output of the second content item; and based at least in part on the determined intent, retrieving for output the target content item from the second streaming service provider server system on the user device (see include, but are not limited to, Thomas: figures 2, 6-7, 14-17, paragraphs 0187, 0232; Ramachandra: paragraphs 0008, 0023).
Regarding claims 18-19, the additional limitations of the system that correspond to the additional limitations of the method in claims 8-9 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claims 8-9.
Claims 10-11 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 20180288490) in view of Clasen et al. (US 11,558,672) and further in view of Moguillansky (US 20150074718).
Regarding claim 10, Thomas in view of Clasen discloses the method further comprising: receiving second user interface feedback during output of a second recommendation content item via the first launchable application running on a user device, wherein the second recommendation content item indicates a second target content item available via the second launchable application running on the user device; and based at least in part on determining that the second user interface feedback is negative toward the second target content item: updating user rating of the second target content item (during output of the second recommendation based on user selection and/or user profile, receiving a second user feedback whether user to skip, dislike or not select the second recommended/suggested content and based on user feedback that is negative toward the second content item such as skipping or not selecting or disliking the content, or excluding the content, etc., updating the rating such as replacing or updating the listing of the disliked/skipped or non-selected content – see include, but are not limited to, Thomas: figures 1, 5-8, paragraphs 0008, 0079, 0113-0114, 0149, 0178-0179; E801: col. 26, line 56-col. 27, lines 12; Yates: figures 5, 9). However, Thomas does not explicitly disclose updating rating of the second content comprises decreasing user rating of second content.
Moguillansky discloses based at least in part on determining that second user interface feedback is negative toward second target content item: decreasing a user rating of the second target content item (based on feedback is negative such as thumb-down or not viewing second content item such as content 1, content 2, decreasing user rating/trending down of second content item based on feedback is negative toward content 1, 2k DEF – see include, but are not limited to, figures 5-6, 9, 11, paragraphs 0005-0006, 0048, 0051-0053, 0057-0058).
See also Bovenschulte (US 20070136753: paragraphs 0035, 0055, 0120 and its fully incorporated by reference in para. 0035 including 20050149964: figures 9-10a) for the teaching of decreasing user rating based in part of feedback is negative toward a content and updating the list of most five popular content items).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas with the teaching of decreasing user rating for second program as taught by Moguillansky in order to yield predictable result of allowing user to easily see decreasing/trending down of user rating (see paragraph 0004, figures 6, 9).
Regarding claim 11, Thomas in view of Clasen discloses the method further comprising: receiving second user interface feedback during output of a second recommendation content item via the first launchable application running on a user device, wherein the second recommendation content item indicates a second target content item available via the second launchable application running on the user device; and
based at least in part on determining that the second user interface feedback is negative toward the second target content item, displaying an indication of feedback on the master list (tracking selection/feedback is negative to the content such as dislike, not selecting or skipping content or entity or portion of content and based on the feedback, displaying an indication of feedback based on selection of content,– see include, but are not limited to, Thomas: figures 1-2, 5-8, paragraphs 0111-0114, 0149, 0178-0179; E801: col. 26, line 56-col. 27, lines 12; Yates: figures 5, 9). However, Thomas does not explicitly disclose displaying negative feedback on a list.
Moguillansky discloses based at least in part on determining that second user interface feedback is negative toward second target content item: displaying an indication of the negative feedback on a list (based on feedback is negative such as thumb-down or not viewing second content item, displaying indication such as thumb-down or trending down on a list – see include, but are not limited to, figures 5-6, 9, 11, paragraphs 0048, 0055, 0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomas with the teaching of decreasing user rating for second program as taught by Moguillansky in order to yield predictable result of allowing user to easily see negative feedback (see paragraph 0004, figures 5-6).
Regarding claims 20-21, the additional limitations of the system that correspond to the additional limitations of the method in claims 10-11 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claims 10-11.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12167081. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims 2-21 and Patent claims 1-18 are directed to the same invention with a different in scope and are therefore an obvious variant thereof or the invention defined in instant claims 2-21 is an obvious variation of the invention defined in the patent claims 1-18 because for limitations in the instant claims (e.g., receiving user interface feedback during output of a recommendation content item) that are not recited in patent claims are known by prior art (see for example, prior arts discussed in the rejection above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combine in patent claims with the well-known teachings as taught in the prior art cited above for the benefit as discussed in the prior art rejection above including improving convenience for seeing user interface feedback.
Allowance of claims 2-21 would result in an un-warranted timewise extension of the monopoly granted for the invention as defined in claims 1-18 of Patent No. 12,167,081.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Trajkovic et al. (US 8751957) discloses method and apparatus for obtaining auditory and gestural feedback in a commendation system (see also figures 3B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN SON PHI HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7295. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NASSER M. GOODARZI can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/AN SON P HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
January 29, 2026