DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s current amendment (dated 14 APRIL 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 52-55, 57-65, and 67-73 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the citations being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 52-55, 57, 60-65, 67, and 70-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maughan, US 2015/0143409 in view of Brothers et al., US 9,678,637.
Regarding claim 52, Maughan discloses a method comprising: detecting, using a sensor, (detection with at least a biometric sensor/device; page 13, paragraph 112) a current physical activity of a user (can determine current activity of a user, such a user is currently exercising, i.e., physical activity; page 13, paragraphs 111-112);
determining attributes of the current physical activity (based on detection, can determine that a user is currently exercising because of an elevated heartbeat, i.e. determined attribute(s) associated with the activity; page 13, paragraph 112);
receiving, from an application, a request to provide an output to a user interface (can at least receive user input requesting a user guidance application to provide a particular recommendation; page 6, paragraph 52, and page 12, paragraph 105, and page 13, paragraph 119, and Fig 1, element 122);
determining the output (determining that a user requests output of recommendations relating to particular type(s)/attribute(s); page 4, paragraph 39, and page 6, paragraph 52, and page 12, paragraph 105, and page 13, paragraph 119, and Fig 1, element 122);
querying a database for a plurality of content items with metadata that matches both: (a) the attributes of the current physical activity, and (b) the output (can reference a database for content items that are related to both the activity of the user and the particular request for output of recommendation(s); pages 11-12, paragraph 98, and page 13, paragraph 115, and page 14, paragraph 127, and wherein with metadata of the content; page 14, paragraphs 127-128, and page 15, paragraph 131);
retrieving, based on the querying, an entry related to at least one of the plurality of content items, the entry comprising both the attributes of the current physical activity and the output (can reference a database for content items, i.e. entry/entries relating to content item(s) that are related to both the activity of the user and the particular request for output of recommendation(s); pages 11-12, paragraph 98, and page 13, paragraph 115, and page 14, paragraph 127, and can provide, i.e. retrieving and providing, the entry and recommendation, which can include a plurality; page 12, paragraph 104 and 107, and page 15, paragraph 136, and Fig. 2, elements 208, 210, and 212, and page 6, paragraph 57); and
generating for display a prompt to play that comprises the plurality of content items (can provide the recommendations, which can include a plurality; page 12, paragraph 104 and 107, and page 15, paragraph 136, and Fig. 2, elements 208, 210, and 212, and page 6, paragraph 57, and wherein with pop-up message/window, i.e. prompt; pages 12-13, paragraph 107, and page 15, paragraph 136).
Maughan does not explicitly disclose determining attributes with an output, and the attributes of the output;
a playlist, the playlist indicated by an entry in a database; and
causing the playlist to be played based on a user interface interaction with a prompt.
In a related art, Brothers does disclose determining a current physical activity (determining a user’s current activity context i.e. such as they are running, walking, etc.; col. 7, lines 28-51, and col. 10, lines 14-20, and col. 13, lines 20-21);
determining attributes with an output, and the attributes of the output (attributes associated with recommendation requests, i.e. such as recommendations for particular genres, content types, or other filters; Fig. 4, element 404, and col. 11, line 65 – col. 12, line 17, and can also include output appropriate for listening, i.e. output attribute; col. 7, lines 28-51, and col. 10, lines 7-32, and currently listening to, i.e. output attribute, such as audio, of an output; col. 11, lines 42-48);
retrieving based on referencing a database, an entry comprising both attributes of the current physical activity and attributes of the output (based on matching user context and activity with content characteristics; col. 13, lines 20-33, including activity context and other contexts, i.e., such as output appropriate for listening, i.e. output attribute; col. 7, lines 28-51, and col. 10, lines 7-32, and currently listening to, i.e. output attribute, such as audio, of an output; col. 11, lines 42-48, and based on context-to-characteristic querying/matching in at least a datastore; col. 10, lines 33-57, and col. 10, line 58 – col. 11, line 19, and searching, i.e. querying the datastore; col. 8, lines 14-20, and col. 13, lines 50-57);
a playlist (recommendation(s) can include playlist(s) of content; col. 2, lines 53-67, and col. 11, lines 42-64), the playlist indicated by the entry in the database (entries/recommendation can include a playlist; col. 2, lines 53-62, and col. 11, lines 42-48, and col. 13, lines 50-57, and again based on context-to-characteristic querying/matching in at least a datastore; col. 10, lines 33-57, and col. 10, line 58 – col. 11, line 19, and searching, i.e. querying the datastore; col. 8, lines 14-20, and col. 13, lines 50-57); and
causing the playlist to be played based on a user interface interaction with a prompt (prompt/message element; Fig. 5, element 502, and col. 11, lines 20-30, and col. 12, lines 57-66, and interaction with prompt(s) to allow for presentation of the content; col. 13, lines 7-10, and again with playlist(s) of content; col. 2, lines 53-67, and col. 11, lines 42-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Maughan and Brothers by allowing attribute information to be determined for activities and requests which are used to provide playlists of content, in order to provide an improved system and method for providing a user with a recommendation of one or more portions of one or more content items to consume in a given context (Brothers; col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 1).
Regarding claim 53, Maughan in view of Brothers discloses the database is a social media database (Maughan; with database; page 13, paragraph 115, and page 14, paragraphs 123 and 127, and wherein can include social media data; page 2, paragraph 22, and page 11, paragraphs 90 and 97, and page 13, paragraphs 114 and 118), the method further comprising:
determining a social media profile associated with at least one additional user with whom the user is associated (Maughan; can determine social media information, i.e. profiles, of friends, i.e. at least one associated user(s); page 11, paragraphs 90 and 93, and page 13, paragraph 118); and
determining, based on the social media profile, that the at least one additional user uses the application while engaging in activity similar to the current physical activity of the user (Maughan; based on the social data, can determine that other users typically access certain assets, i.e. use an application for access, based on their similar activities; page 13, paragraph 114-115).
Regarding claim 54, Maughan in view of Brothers discloses attributes of the output are determined based in part on media asset information (Brothers; can be related to at least attributes associated with recommendation requests, i.e. such as recommendations for particular genres, content types, or other filters; Fig. 4, element 404, and col. 11, line 65 – col. 12, line 17, and Maughan; based on particular genres of media assets; page 13, paragraph 118), and wherein the prompt comprises media asset information (Maughan; pop-up message/window, i.e. prompt includes information; pages 12-13, paragraph 107, and page 15, paragraph 136, and Fig. 2, elements 214 and 216, and page 6, paragraph 57, and Brothers; Fig. 6, element 606, and col. 13, lines 14-57).
Regarding claim 55, Maughan in view of Brothers discloses the current physical activity is a physical activity (Maughan; current activity of a user, such a user is currently exercising, i.e., physical activity; page 13, paragraphs 111-112, and Brothers; determining a user’s current activity context i.e. such as they are running, walking, etc.; col. 7, lines 28-51, and col. 10, lines 14-20, and col. 13, lines 20-21), and wherein the entry comprises media asset recommendations that are associated with both the physical activity, and the attributes of the output, (Maughan; recommended content items that are related to both the activity of the user and the particular request for output of recommendation(s); pages 11-12, paragraph 98, and page 13, paragraph 115, and page 14, paragraph 127, and Brothers; based on matching user context and activity with content characteristics; col. 13, lines 20-33, including activity context and other contexts, i.e., such as output appropriate for listening, i.e. output attribute; col. 7, lines 28-51, and col. 10, lines 7-32, and currently listening to, i.e. output attribute, such as audio, of an output; col. 11, lines 42-48, and based on context-to-characteristic querying/matching in at least a datastore; col. 10, lines 33-57, and col. 10, line 58 – col. 11, line 19, and searching, i.e. querying the datastore; col. 8, lines 14-20, and col. 13, lines 50-57), and wherein the entry indicates the playlist (Brothers; entries/recommendation can include a playlist; col. 2, lines 53-62, and col. 11, lines 42-48, and col. 13, lines 50-57, and again based on context-to-characteristic querying/matching in at least a datastore; col. 10, lines 33-57, and col. 10, line 58 – col. 11, line 19, and searching, i.e. querying the datastore; col. 8, lines 14-20, and col. 13, lines 50-57, and Maughan; can reference a database for content items, i.e. entry/entries relating to content item(s) that are related to both the activity of the user and the particular request for output of recommendation(s); pages 11-12, paragraph 98, and page 13, paragraph 115, and page 14, paragraph 127).
Regarding claim 57, Maughan in view of Brothers discloses requesting, from the application, information related to one or more media assets (Maughan; selection for providing information about a media asset/listing; page 3, paragraph 27, and receive user input requesting a user guidance application to provide a particular recommendation/information relating to a show about renovations; page 6, paragraph 52, and page 12, paragraph 105, and page 13, paragraph 119, and Fig 1, element 122);
wherein the request to provide the output is received from the application based at least in part on the requesting for information related to one or more media assets (Maughan; again, based on input requesting a user guidance application to provide a particular recommendation/information relating to a show about renovations; page 6, paragraph 52, and page 12, paragraph 105, and page 13, paragraph 119, and Fig 1, element 122).
Regarding claim 60, Maughan in view of Brothers discloses the request to provide the output to the user interface comprises media asset information associated with media assets that are retrievable via a media asset application (Maughan; with at least media assets accessible via guidance application; page 2, paragraphs 18-20 and 22).
Regarding claim 61, Maughan in view of Brothers discloses receiving user input associated with the prompt (Maughan; pop-up message/window, i.e. prompt; pages 12-13, paragraph 107, and page 15, paragraph 136, and user inputs; page 7, paragraph 65, and Brothers; prompt/message element; Fig. 5, element 502, and col. 12, lines 57-66, and interaction with prompt(s) to allow for presentation of the content; col. 13, lines 7-10, and again with playlist(s) of content; col. 2, lines 53-67, and col. 11, lines 42-64) associating the playlist with a user profile associated with the user (Maughan; associating information with a user profile(s) based on interaction with the guidance application, i.e. inputs for prompts, viewings, etc.; page 6, paragraph 50, and Brothers; with playlist(s); col. 2, lines 53-67, and col. 11, lines 42-64).
Claim 62, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 52. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a sensor (Maughan; with at least biometric monitor/sensor; page 13, paragraph 112);
a user interface (Maughan; with graphical user interface screens; page 2, paragraphs 19-20, and Fig. 1, element 100, and page 3, paragraph 30); and
control circuitry (Maughan; including at least control circuitry; page 7, paragraph 61, and Fig. 3, element 304).
Claim 63, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 53.
Claim 64, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 54.
Claim 65, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 55.
Claim 67, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 57.
Claim 70, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 60.
Claim 71, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 61.
Claims 58-59 and 68-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maughan, US 2015/0143409 in view of Brothers et al., US 9,678,637 and further in view of Cosenza et al., US 9,451,584.
Regarding claim 58, Maughan in view of Brothers discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 52, as well as determining, based at least in part on the determined attributes of the current physical activity (Maughan; can make determinations based on attributes of an activity, such as an elevated heartbeat; page 13, paragraph 112).
Maughan in view of Brothers does not explicitly disclose determining based on the current physical activity, whether the user routinely uses the application while engaged in the current physical activity.
In a related art, Cosenza does disclose determining based on the current physical activity, whether the user routinely uses the application while engaged in the current physical activity (when user is jogging, i.e. detected current physical activity, log can be accessed in order to determine average durations of the workouts, i.e. routine; col. 7, lines 24-27, and wherein system can recognize physical activity is being performed; col. 7, lines 19-23, and wherein system can utilize log information in order to determine expected, i.e. routine, use for an application; col. 5, lines 3-27, and col. 6, lines 57-61, and col. 7, lines 23-27, and col. 13, line 56 - col. 14, line 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Maughan, Brothers, and Cosenza by allowing historical/previous data to be utilized when determining usage of applications with certain activities, in order to provide an improved system and method for intelligent selection of notification techniques in an electronic device based on various factors, including the urgency or importance of the incoming communication and the media or application currently executing on the electronic device (Cosenza; col. 1, lines 44-51).
Regarding claim 59, Maughan in view of Brothers and Cosenza discloses determining whether the user routinely uses the application while engaged in the current physical activity is further based on historical user information associated with the user (Cosenza; can utilize log information, i.e. historical user information, in order to determine expected, i.e. routine, use for an application; col. 5, lines 3-27, and col. 6, lines 57-61, and col. 7, lines 23-27, and col. 13, line 56 - col. 14, line 3, and again with recognized physical activity is being performed; col. 7, lines 19-23).
Claim 68, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 58.
Claim 69, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 59.
Claims 72-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maughan, US 2015/0143409 in view of Brothers et al., US 9,678,637 and further in view of Wong et al., US 2013/0173526.
Regarding claim 58, Maughan in view of Brothers discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 52, as well as the entry comprises information of the current physical activity and a playlist (Maughan; recommended content items that are related to both the activity of the user and the particular request for output of recommendation(s); pages 11-12, paragraph 98, and page 13, paragraph 115, and page 14, paragraph 127, and Brothers; based on matching user context and activity with content characteristics; col. 13, lines 20-33, including activity context and other contexts, i.e., such as output appropriate for listening, i.e. output attribute; col. 7, lines 28-51, and col. 10, lines 7-32, and currently listening to, i.e. output attribute, such as audio, of an output; col. 11, lines 42-48, and based on context-to-characteristic querying/matching in at least a datastore; col. 10, lines 33-57, and col. 10, line 58 – col. 11, line 19, and searching, i.e. querying the datastore; col. 8, lines 14-20, and col. 13, lines 50-57, and entries/recommendation can include a playlist; col. 2, lines 53-62, and col. 11, lines 42-48, and col. 13, lines 50-57), the current physical activity (Maughan; current activity of a user, such a user is currently exercising, i.e., physical activity; page 13, paragraphs 111-112, and Brothers; determining a user’s current activity context i.e. such as they are running, walking, etc.; col. 7, lines 28-51, and col. 10, lines 14-20, and col. 13, lines 20-21), and also alludes to length information (Brothers; recommendation in relation to length information; col. 13, lines 58-65).
Maughan in view of Brothers does not explicitly disclose a duration of an activity, and a total duration of a playlist, the total duration of the playlist corresponding to the duration of the activity.
In a related art, Wong does disclose a duration of an activity, and a total duration of a playlist, the total duration of the playlist corresponding to the duration of the activity (determined duration of the activity, and wherein a playlist can have a corresponding duration, i.e. total duration, that matches the activity duration; page 6, paragraph 74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Maughan, Brothers, and Wong by allowing activity duration information to be utilized with recommending content/playlists, such as the content/playlists already disclosed in Maughan in view of Brothers, in order to provide an improved system and method for automatically identifying content to be presented, wherein the identification is performed responsive to determining a duration during which a user will be performing an activity (Wong; page 1, paragraph 3).
Claim 73, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 72.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights