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 .
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.
Status of Claims
A preliminary amendment filed on 1/21/2025 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-50 have been canceled. Claims 51-70 have been added. Claims 51-70 are pending.
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 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).
Claims 51, 53, 58, 61, 63 and 68 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 9 and 11 of conflicting Patent No. 9,800,935 B2 in view of US Pub. No. 20150150148 A1 to Warner and in further view of US Pub. No. 20150301693 A1 to Wheeler.
Claims 51, 53, 58, 61, 63 and 68 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 11 and 13 of conflicting Patent No. 10,313,757 B2 in view of US Pub. No. 20150150148 A1 to Warner and in further view of US Pub. No. 20150301693 A1 to Wheeler.
Claims 51, 53, 58, 61, 63 and 68 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 8 and 10 of conflicting Patent No. 10,791,371 B2 in view of US Pub. No. 20150150148 A1 to Warner and in further view of US Pub. No. 20150301693 A1 to Wheeler.
Claims 51, 53, 58, 60, 61, 63, 68 and 70 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 15 and 20 of conflicting Patent No. 11,445,254 B2 in view of US Pub. No. 20150150148 A1 to Warner and in further view of US Pub. No. 20150301693 A1 to Wheeler.
Claims 51, 53, 58, 61, 63 and 68 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 11 and 13 of conflicting Patent No. 11,778,273 B2 in view of US Pub. No. 20150150148 A1 to Warner and in further view of US Pub. No. 20150301693 A1 to Wheeler.
Also the corresponding dependent claims are identically the same. Look below for example.
Table 1 illustrates the conflicting claim pairs:
Conflicting Patent No. 9,800,935 B2
1
1 and 3
1
Conflicting Patent No. 10,313,757 B2
1
1 and 3
1
Conflicting Patent No. 10,791,371 B2
1
1 and 3
1
Conflicting Patent No. 11,445,254 B2
1
1
1
6
Conflicting Patent No. 11,778,273 B2
1
1 and 3
1
Pending Application 18/945123
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Conflicting Patent No. 9,800,935 B2
9
9 and 11
9
Conflicting Patent No. 10,313,757 B2
11
11 and 13
11
Conflicting Patent No. 10,791,371 B2
8
8 and 10
8
Conflicting Patent No. 11,445,254 B2
15
15
15
20
Conflicting Patent No. 11,778,273 B2
11
11 and 13
11
Pending Application 18/945123
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Table 2 illustrates a mapping between the limitations claim 51 of the pending application and claim 1 of the conflicting Patent No. 9,800,935 B2, 10,313,757 B2, 10,791,371 B2, 11,445,254 B2 and 11,778,273 B2. Additionally, the dependent claims are analyzed similarly.
Conflicting Patent No. 9,800,935 B2
Claim 1 of Conflicting Application
Serial Number (18/945123)
Claim 1 of Pending Application
1. A method for providing content recommendations based on recent activity, the method comprising:
determining that a user has stopped using a first device and is using a second device;
in response to determining that the user has stopped using the first device and is using the second device, retrieving a period of time that corresponds to an amount of time the user continuously used the first device immediately before using the second device;
transmitting a first request for a plurality of media assets that the user consumed on the first device during the period of time;
receiving, in response to the first request, a plurality of media asset identifiers corresponding to media assets that the user has consumed during the period of time;
transmitting a second request for metadata associated with the plurality of media asset identifiers corresponding to the media assets that the user has consumed during the period of time;
determining, based on the metadata, a plurality characteristics, wherein each of the plurality of characteristics is associated with a media asset of the plurality of media assets that the user has consumed during the period of time;
calculating, for each of the plurality of characteristics, a number of media assets from the plurality of media assets that match a respective characteristic of the plurality of characteristics;
determining, based on the calculating, a characteristic that is associated with a greatest number of media assets of the plurality of media assets that the user consumed on the first device during the period of time that the user continuously used the first device immediately before using the second device; and
recommending, based on the characteristic, media content for consumption on the second device.
51. (New) A method for providing content recommendations, the method comprising:
detecting a selection for presentation of a first content item;
retrieving metadata associated with the first content item;
based on the retrieved metadata, determining that a second content item is related to the first content item;
prior to presentation of the first content item, causing display of a notification related to the second content item; and
based on receiving input associated with the notification, causing display of the second content item prior to displaying the first content item.
As Table 2 clearly illustrates, the only limitation not taught by claim 1 of the conflicting patent No. 9,800,935 B2, 10,313,757 B2, 10,791,371 B2, 11,445,254 B2 and 11,778,273 B2 are:
detecting a selection for presentation of a first content item; based on the retrieved metadata, determining that a second content item is related to the first content item; prior to presentation of the first content item, causing display of a notification related to the second content item; and based on receiving input associated with the notification, causing display of the second content item prior to displaying the first content item.
However, Warner discloses detecting a selection for presentation of a first content item (Warner Fig. 2, 5, ¶0037-0038, receiving request from a user to present a particular piece of content); retrieving metadata associated with the first content item (Warner Fig. 2, 5, ¶0037-0038, accessing content information for the one or more pieces of content); prior to presentation of the first content item, causing display of a notification related to the second content item (Warner Fig. 2, 5, ¶0041, 0045, 0047, 0049, before displaying the requested content, displaying a message on the display related to content recommendations); and based on receiving input associated with the notification, causing display of the second content item prior to displaying the first content item (Warner Fig. 2, 5, ¶0041, 0045, 0047, 0049, displaying the recommended other content the user may like based on user selection of the recommended other content before displaying the first requested content).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify conflicting patent No. 9,800,935 B2, 10,313,757 B2, 10,791,371 B2, 11,445,254 B2 and 11,778,273 B2 by detecting a selection for presentation of a first content item; prior to presentation of the first content item, causing display of a notification related to the second content item; and based on receiving input associated with the notification, causing display of the second content item prior to displaying the first content item as disclosed by Warner. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to recommend second contents that allows the user the option to watch the second content instead of the first content thereby enhancing the user’s viewing experience.
Conflicting patent No. 9,800,935 B2, 10,313,757 B2, 10,791,371 B2, 11,445,254 B2, 11,778,273 B2 and Warner do not expressly disclose based on the retrieved metadata, determining that a second content item is related to the first content item.
Wheeler discloses based on the retrieved metadata, determining that a second content item is related to the first content item (Wheeler¶0028, identify related media content based on metadata associated with media content).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify conflicting patent No. 9,800,935 B2, 10,313,757 B2, 10,791,371 B2, 11,445,254 B2, 11,778,273 B2 and Warner by based on the retrieved metadata, determining that a second content item is related to the first content item as disclosed by Wheeler. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to recommend second contents that is related to the first content based on the metadata thereby enhancing the user’s viewing experience.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
Claims 51, 58, 61 and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20150150148 A1 to Warner in view of US Pub. No. 20150301693 A1 to Wheeler.
As to claims 51 and 61, Warner discloses a method for providing content recommendations, the method comprising:
detecting a selection for presentation of a first content item (Warner Fig. 2, 5, ¶0037-0038, receiving request from a user to present a particular piece of content);
retrieving metadata associated with the first content item (Warner Fig. 2, 5, ¶0037-0038, accessing content information for the one or more pieces of content);
prior to presentation of the first content item, causing display of a notification related to the second content item (Warner Fig. 2, 5, ¶0041, 0045, 0047, 0049, before displaying the requested content, displaying a message on the display related to content recommendations); and
based on receiving input associated with the notification, causing display of the second content item prior to displaying the first content item (Warner Fig. 2, 5, ¶0041, 0045, 0047, 0049, displaying the recommended other content the user may like based on user selection of the recommended other content before displaying the first requested content).
Warner does not expressly disclose based on the retrieved metadata, determining that a second content item is related to the first content item;
Wheeler discloses based on the retrieved metadata, determining that a second content item is related to the first content item (Wheeler¶0028, identify related media content based on metadata associated with media content).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warner by based on the retrieved metadata, determining that a second content item is related to the first content item as disclosed by Wheeler. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to recommend second contents that is related to the first content based on the metadata thereby enhancing the user’s viewing experience.
As to claims 58 and 68, Warner discloses wherein: the second content item comprises at least one of an image, a text, a video clip, or an advertisement (Warner Fig. 2, 5, ¶0037, image, video)
Claims 52 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20150150148 A1 to Warner in view of US Pub. No. 20150301693 A1 to Wheeler and in further view of US Pub. No. 20130021533 A1 to Lee.
As to claims 52 and 62, Warner and Wheeler do not expressly disclose subsequent to display of the second content item, causing display of the first content item.
Lee discloses subsequent to display of the second content item, causing display of the first content item (Lee ¶0076, after playing the second content is completed, displaying the first content).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warner and Wheeler by subsequent to display of the second content item, causing display of the first content item as disclosed by Lee. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to display the contents in different order allowing videos to be watched in a different order thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
Claims 53 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20150150148 A1 to Warner in view of US Pub. No. 20150301693 A1 to Wheeler and in further view of US Pub. No. 20130021533 A1 to Lee and in further view of US Pub. No. 20160066040 A1 to Webster.
As to claims 53 and 63, Warner, Wheeler and Lee do not expressly disclose the first content item is displayed at a user device; and the second content item is displayed at a second device
Webster discloses wherein: the first content item is displayed at a user device; and the second content item is displayed at a second device (Webster Fig. 5-7, ¶0026-0027, 0030, 0032, 0037-0039, 0044, 0049-0051, 0055-0058, first content displayed at first device and second content displayed on second device)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warner, Wheeler and Lee by wherein: the first content item is displayed at a user device; and the second content item is displayed at a second device as disclosed by Webster. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to allow the user to watch content on a plurality of different devices thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
Claims 54, 60, 64 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20150150148 A1 to Warner in view of US Pub. No. 20150301693 A1 to Wheeler and in further view of US Pub. No. 20160066040 A1 to Webster.
As to claims 54 and 64, Warner and Wheeler do not expressly disclose the first content item is associated with a first content provider and the second content item is associated with a second content provider.
Webster discloses wherein: the first content item is associated with a first content provider and the second content item is associated with a second content provider (Webster ¶0037, 0039, plurality of content providers associated with different contents).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warner and Wheeler by wherein: the first content item is associated with a first content provider and the second content item is associated with a second content provider as disclosed by Webster. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide content from a plurality of different content providers thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
As to claims 60 and 70, Warner and Wheeler do not expressly disclose wherein: the first content item is an episode of a series.
Webster discloses the first content item is an episode of a series (Webster ¶0012, content episodes of a series).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warner and Wheeler by the first content item is an episode of a series as disclosed by Webster. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide the user with content including content with episodes of a series thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
Claims 55-57 and 65-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20150150148 A1 to Warner in view of US Pub. No. 20150301693 A1 to Wheeler and in further view of US Pub. No. 20160066040 A1 to Webster and in further view of US Pub. No. 20120324512 A1 to Cahnbley.
As to claims 55 and 65, Warner discloses wherein the notification comprises at least some of the information associated with the plurality of additional content items (Warner Fig. 2, 5, ¶0041, 0045, 0047, 0049, displaying the recommended other content the user may like including a list of the content title/name, e.g. content 1, content 2); and
wherein the second content item is an additional content item of the plurality of additional content items (Warner Fig. 2, 5, ¶0041, 0045, 0047, 0049, a list of the content title/name, e.g. content 1, content 2).
Warner, Wheeler and Webster do not expressly disclose querying the second content provider for additional content items with metadata similar to the metadata associated with the first content item; and
receiving, from the second content provider, information associated with a plurality of additional content items, each additional content item of the plurality of additional content items comprising metadata similar to the metadata associated with the first content item;
Cahnbley discloses querying the second content provider for additional content items with metadata similar to the metadata associated with the first content item (Cahnbley ¶0051-0053, 0055-0057, searching/querying the content providers/sources for further content with content information similar/related to the content information associated with the content); and
receiving, from the second content provider, information associated with a plurality of additional content items, each additional content item of the plurality of additional content items comprising metadata similar to the metadata associated with the first content item (Cahnbley ¶0051-0053, 0055-0057¶0051-0053, 0055-0057, providing by the content providers/sources, information associated with further content, each of the further content having content information similar/related to the content information associated with the content).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warner, Wheeler and Webster by querying the second content provider for additional content items with metadata similar to the metadata associated with the first content item; and receiving, from the second content provider, information associated with a plurality of additional content items, each additional content item of the plurality of additional content items comprising metadata similar to the metadata associated with the first content item as disclosed by Cahnbley. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to search/query for additional content from a plurality of different content sources providing content that the user can view from the plurality of content sources thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
As to claims 56 and 66, Warner discloses wherein: the notification comprises a listing of the plurality of additional content items (Warner Fig. 2, 5, ¶0041, 0045, 0047, 0049, displaying the recommended other content the user may like including a list of the content title/name, e.g. content 1, content 2).
As to claims 57 and 67, Cahnbley discloses wherein the querying comprises at least one of an episode identifier, a series identifier, a title identifier, a genre identifier, or a category identifier (Cahnbley ¶0021-0035, 0051-0053, 0055-0057¶0051-0053, 0055-0057, title, genre/category).
Claims 59 and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20150150148 A1 to Warner in view of US Pub. No. 20150301693 A1 to Wheeler and in further view of US Pub. No. 20100125884 A1 to Howcroft.
As to claims 59 and 69, Warner and Wheeler do not expressly disclose wherein: the second content item is a preview of the first content item.
Howcroft discloses wherein: the second content item is a preview of the first content item (Howcroft ¶0043, watch the movie trailer prior to watching the movie).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Warner and Wheeler by wherein: the second content item is a preview of the first content item as disclosed by Howcroft. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide the user a preview of the content before watching the content allowing the viewer to decide to watch or not watch thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
Conclusion
Claims 51-70 have been rejected.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYU CHAE whose telephone number is (571)270-5696. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00am -4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NASSER MOAZZAMI can be reached on 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 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.
/KYU CHAE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426