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 11/20/2024. 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of US Patent No. 12184934 (hereafter “Patent’934) in view of Su (US 2016/0098640) and PHADNIS (US 2016/0301979, hereafter “PHADNIS’979”).
As to claim 1, Claim 7 of Patent’934 discloses a method comprising:
determining an interest in a content item based at least in part on a user profile and/or a subscription profile (see Claim 7’s Grandparent Claim 1, “accessing a user profile and/or a subscription profile; determining an interest in a content item based on at least one of the user profile, the subscription profile, or a content item profile”);
based at least in part on the determined interest satisfying a condition, determining whether the subscription profile has access to the content item (see Claim 7’s Grandparent Claim 1, “based at least in part on the determined interest satisfying a condition, determining whether access to the content item is included in the subscription profile”); and
based at least in part on determining that the subscription profile lacks access to the content item (see Claim 7’s Grandparent Claim 1, “based at least in part on determining that access to the
content item is not included in the subscription profile”):
causing display of at least one selectable option to modify the subscription profile, wherein modifying the subscription profile comprises granting the subscription profile access to the content item (see Claim 7’s Grandparent Claim 1, “causing display of one or more selectable options to modify the subscription profile based on a recommendation determined based at least in part on the determined interest satisfying the condition; and causing display of a comparison table summarizing a viewing activity associated with the user profile and one or more content items that will be accessible with the modified subscription profile”).
Claim 7 of Patent’934, however, does not expressly disclose that the determining interest is based at least in part on a subscription file, or, based at least in part on receiving a selection of the at least one selectable option, granting the subscription profile access to the content item.
Su discloses determining an interest based on a subscription file ([0041], “The content feed 210 may additionally store user preference information and other metadata. User preference information may include implicit preferences such as user location and subscribed channel package with a provider”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 7 of Patent’934 with Su. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to taken into account the user’s past selection of contents for determining a user preference (Su, [0041]).
PHADNIS’979 discloses based at least in part on receiving a selection of the at least one selectable option, granting the subscription profile access to the content item ([0092], “At step 1402 it requires the user to select the channel, programs from the available recommended programs, channels and packs. The account is updated 1403 with the changed plan according to the selected recommended program, channels/pack”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 7 of Patent’934 with PHADNIS’979. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to update user account (PHADNIS’979, [0092]).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 2, Claim 7 of Patent’934 in view of Su and PHADNIS’979 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
based at least in part on the determining that the subscription profile lacks access to the
content item, generating for display an alert that the subscription profile lacks access to the content item (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Claim 7 of Patent’934, “causing display of one or more selectable options to modify the subscription profile based on a recommendation determined based at least in part on the determined interest satisfying the condition; and causing display of a comparison table summarizing a viewing activity associated with the user profile and one or more content items that will be accessible with the modified subscription profile”, wherein displaying “one or more content items that will be accessible with the modified subscription profile” is equivalent to displaying an alert that the current subscription profile lacks access to the recommended “one or more content items”. It is to be noted that the claimed limitation is “an alert that…” without requiring an actual content of the alert).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Claim 7 of Patent’934 in view of Su and PHADNIS’979 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: based at least in part on the determining that the subscription profile lacks access to the content item, generating for display a selectable option to review a current subscription of the subscription profile (PHADNIS’979, Figure 4, “Display Currently Subscribe Pack Details”; [0081], “In case the user authentication is successful, the account access rights are authorized at the step 305. At step 306 the user is provided with the "My Account" process interface. The interface at step 307 provides process for obtaining the user details, at step 309 provides process to obtain current subscription details”; see also [0082], both current and recommended packs are displayed).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 3.
AS to claim 4, Claim 7 of Patent’934 in view of Su and PHADNIS’979 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating for display, on a user interface of a user device signed in to the subscription profile, wherein the user interface comprises a selectable option to access the content item (see 112 rejection and Examiner’s interpretation therein. See Phadnis’979, [0081], “In case the user authentication is successful, the account access rights are authorized at the step 305…The execution of step 317 provides the user the "program page" wherein the user is allowed to view, customize and subscribe the program.”).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 5, Claim 7 of Patent’934 in view of Su and PHADNIS’979 discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising generating for display, on the user interface of the user device signed in to the subscription profile, an electronic program guide (EPG) comprising the selectable option (PHADNIS’979, [0081], “The execution of step 313 provides the user "My TV Guide" wherein the channel numbers and schedule grid based on his Pack is made available to the user. At the step 314 the user is provided with the process for managing his favourites. The step 315 provides a process for discovering unknown packs, channels, recommendations, etc. The step 316 provide a process for discovering unknown packs/channels, recommendations, top channels/Packs etc. The execution of step 317 provides the user the "program page" wherein the user is allowed to view, customize and subscribe the program”; [0082], “The process on execution extracts the channel pack details 401 including the currently subscribed pack details from the user account and the available channel packs from the EPG database and PLM database, display the currently subscribe pack details 405 and available channel pack details 406. The user is prompted to check if he wants to select new pack 407. If the user decides to select new pack, the new pack is selected from the available channel packs 408”), wherein:
the EPG comprises at least one channel identifier, at least one time identifier, and at least one
content item title (see citation above, PHADNIS’979, [0081], “The execution of step 313 provides the user "My TV Guide" wherein the channel numbers and schedule grid based on his Pack is made available to the user. The execution of step 317 provides the user the "program page" wherein the user is allowed to view, customize and subscribe the program”), and
the at least one channel identifier of the EPG is associated with a new channel comprising access to the content item (PHADNIS’979, [0092], “At step 1402 it requires the user to select the channel, programs from the available recommended programs, channels and packs. The account is updated 1403 with the changed plan according to the selected recommended program, channels/pack”).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 6, Claim 7 of Patent’934 in view of Su and PHADNIS’979 discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the granting the subscription profile access to the content item comprises adding the new channel comprising access to the content item to the subscription profile (see PHADNIS’979, [0092], “At step 1402 it requires the user to select the channel, programs from the available recommended programs, channels and packs. The account is updated 1403 with the changed plan according to the selected recommended program, channels/pack”).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 7, Claim 7 of Patent’934 in view of Su and PHADNIS’979 discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1. Su further discloses that the interest in the content item is determined by one or more machine learning techniques ([0053], “the recommendation engine 225 recommends content for a user across and within three categories of TV, movie and sport. The recommendation engine 225 recommends content by generating user specific preference scores for content available to the user through the user device 105 at a specified time interval. The bookkeeping module 505, machine learning module 510, and rules module 525 cooperate to provide preference scores for available content. These three components interact to generate TV, Movie and Sport content recommendations by processing discrete and aggregated viewing activity data and applying a mix of human intelligence and machine learning based analysis to the data”; [0078], “As indicated above, a machine learning module 510 of the recommendation engine 225 (described in greater detail below) assumes responsibility under an embodiment for monitoring user content item viewing activity and for recommending content items”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Patent’934, PHADNIS’979, with Su. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide a collaborative filtering technique to recommend contents (Su, [0078]).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Claim 7 of Patent’934 in view of Su and PHADNIS’979 discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the one or more machine learning techniques comprises:
a predictive model (Claim 7 of Patent’934, Claim 7’s Parent claim 6) trained using at least one of:
a content catalog for one or more content items, wherein the content catalog comprises a content index based on one or more content attributes of each content item of the one or more content items (); or a user map comprising a user index based on past user interest data of the one or more content attributes of the one or more content items (Claim 7 of Patent’934, Claim 7’s Parent claim 6).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 9, Claim 7 of Patent’934 in view of Su and PHADNIS’979 discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the one or more content attributes comprises at least one of a title, a genre, a microgenre, an actor, an age, an expiration date, an n-th language, an (n+ 1)-th language, a running time, a time slot, a date of production, a rating, a user-defined content attribute, or a customized content attribute, and wherein the content index comprises a weight for each of the one or more content attributes (Claim 7 of Patent’934).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 9.
As to claim 10, Claim 7 of Patent’934 in view of Su and PHADNIS’979 discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the content catalog is mapped to the user map using the content index of each content item of the one or more content items and the user index of each user (Su, [0073], “The recommendation engine 225 receives 1005 a recommendation request in a sport category from the user device. The recommendation engine 225 identifies/retrieves 1010 sporting related content items available to the recommendation engine 225 (e.g., those on or starting within the hour). Using information of a content item (selected from the available content items), the recommendation engine 225 identifies/resolves 1015 attributes of the sporting related content item using information and metadata retrieved from the content store 210.”; [0074] The recommendation engine 225 identifies 1020 bookkeeping tables corresponding to such attributes and identified 1035 all expert rules tables (i.e., weights) corresponding to such attributes. The recommendation engine 225 retrieves 1025 user attribute counts (viewing occurrences) relating to the content item attributes from tables maintained by bookkeeping module 505 in the user profile. The bookkeeping module 505 generates a preference score for the content item based on the attribute counts. For example, the bookkeeping module 505 may aggregate count data across bookkeeping tables to determine the user's preference for the content item based on viewing history”; [0075] The rules module 525 then uses the attributes of the sporting related content item in the identified 1035 rules tables to determine any weights applicable to the event. The rules module 525 then applies 1040 any identified weights to the bookkeeping score to produce a weighted preference score. The recommendation engine 225 repeats this process (e.g., steps 1015-1040) for the sports related content items available at the particular time slot to generate 1045 the preference scores for the available sports content items”).
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 4-6 and 14-16 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 4 recites “generating for display, on a user interface of a user device signed in to the subscription profile, wherein the user interface comprises a selectable option to access the content item.” It is unclear what content is/are “generated for display” since the limitation is not grammatically correct. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes generating for display any content related to the content item. Claim 14, 5-6, and 15-16 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-6 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phadnis (US 2025/0265632, hereafter “Phadnis’632”) in view of PHADNIS (US 2016/0301979, hereafter “PHADNIS’979”).
As to claim 1, Phadnis’632 discloses a method comprising:
determining an interest in a content item based at least in part on a subscription profile ([0019], “Based on the user subscription info received and user activities and preference data, if any, the viewer preference data has been generated. The user activity and transaction data and accordingly the preference columns of the viewer dataset at the viewer preference manager (1014) are updated
and a Recommended List of channels and programs based on User preference is generated”, wherein any content item on the “Recommended List of channels and programs” is a determined content item of interest because they are generated based on the “User preference”);
based at least in part on the determined interest satisfying a condition, determining whether the subscription profile has access to the content item [0075], “the personalized subscription recommendation service may filter the set of available subscription packages to eliminate any subscription packages that the subscriber is already subscribed to. In other words, the personalized subscription recommendation service may filter the subscription packages to generate a subset of subscription packages that includes only those subscription packages that are not included in the subscriber's current subscription. The personalized subscription recommendation service can then select one of the subset of subscription packages as the subscription recommendation”. Here, “available” is a condition that the determined interest needs to satisfy, and generating “a subset of subscription packages that includes only those subscription packages that are not included in the subscriber's current subscription” indicates determining whether the subscription profile has access to each recommended package including the finally selected subscription package); and
based at least in part on determining that the subscription profile lacks access to the content item (see citation above, “a subset of subscription packages that includes only those subscription packages that are not included in the subscriber's current subscription… select one of the subset of subscription packages as the subscription recommendation”):
causing display of at least one Recommendation to the user (Fig. 4, “Recommendations delivered to…Users”; Fig. 7, “RE sends Recommendation” “To Users via Web Portals and social media” indicating display of the Recommendation).
Phadnis’632, however, does not expressly disclose causing display of at least one selectable option to modify the subscription profile, wherein modifying the subscription profile comprises granting the subscription profile access to the content item; and based at least in part on receiving a selection of the at least one selectable option, granting the subscription profile access to the content item. PHADNIS’979 discloses causing display of at least one selectable option to modify the subscription profile, wherein modifying the subscription profile comprises granting the subscription profile access to the content item; and based at least in part on receiving a selection of the at least one selectable option, granting the subscription profile access to the content item [0082], “The process on execution extracts the channel pack details 401 including the currently subscribed pack details from the user account and the available channel packs from the EPG database and PLM database, display the currently subscribe pack details 405 and available channel pack details 406. The user is prompted to check if he wants to select new pack 407. If the user decides to select new pack, the new pack is selected from the available channel packs 408”; [0092], “At step 1402 it requires the user to select the channel, programs from the available recommended programs, channels and packs. The account is updated 1403 with the changed plan according to the selected recommended program, channels/pack”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Phadnis’632 with PHADNIS’979. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to enable a user to view recommended content by subscribing to the recommended content (PHADNIS’979, [0082]).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 2, Phadnis’632 in view of PHADNIS’979 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
based at least in part on the determining that the subscription profile lacks access to the
content item, generating for display an alert that the subscription profile lacks access to the content item (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Phadnis’632, Fig. 4, “Recommendations delivered to…Users”; Fig. 7, “RE sends Recommendation” “To Users via Web Portals and social media”, wherein the displayed recommendation is equivalent to an alert that the current subscription profile lacks access to the recommended content item. It is to be noted that the claimed limitation is “an alert that…” without requiring an actual content of the alert).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Phadnis’632 in view of PHADNIS’979 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: based at least in part on the determining that the subscription profile lacks access to the content item, generating for display a selectable option to review a current subscription of the subscription profile (see citation in rejection to claim 1, wherein Phadnis’632 discloses based at least in part on the determining that the subscription profile lacks access to the content item, generating for display the recommended content. PHADNIS’979 further discloses generating for display a selectable option to review a current subscription of the subscription profile along with displaying a selectable option for a recommended content, see PHADNIS’979, Figure 4, “Display Currently Subscribe Pack Details”; see also [0081], “In case the user authentication is successful, the account access rights are authorized at the step 305. At step 306 the user is provided with the "My Account" process interface. The interface at step 307 provides process for obtaining the user details, at step 309 provides process to obtain current subscription details”; see Fig. 3, “Provide access to authorized User”, then “My Account”, then “Get User Details” and “Get Current Subscription details, then “Display User details and subscription details”, indicating that optionally selecting “My Account” leads to display and review of current subscription of the subscription profile. See also [0082], both current and recommended packs are listed).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 3.
AS to claim 4, Phadnis’632 in view of PHADNIS’979 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating for display, on a user interface of a user device signed in to the subscription profile, wherein the user interface comprises a selectable option to access the content item (see 112 rejection above and Examiner’s interpretation therein. See Phadnis’979, [0081], “In case the user authentication is successful, the account access rights are authorized at the step 305…The execution of step 317 provides the user the "program page" wherein the user is allowed to view, customize and subscribe the program”).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 5, Phadnis’632 in view of PHADNIS’979 discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising generating for display, on the user interface of the user device signed in to the subscription profile, an electronic program guide (EPG) comprising the selectable option (PHADNIS’979, [0081], “The execution of step 313 provides the user "My TV Guide" wherein the channel numbers and schedule grid based on his Pack is made available to the user. At the step 314 the user is provided with the process for managing his favourites. The step 315 provides a process for discovering unknown packs, channels, recommendations, etc. The step 316 provide a process for discovering unknown packs/channels, recommendations, top channels/Packs etc. The execution of step 317 provides the user the "program page" wherein the user is allowed to view, customize and subscribe the program”; [0082], “The process on execution extracts the channel pack details 401 including the currently subscribed pack details from the user account and the available channel packs from the EPG database and PLM database, display the currently subscribe pack details 405 and available channel pack details 406. The user is prompted to check if he wants to select new pack 407. If the user decides to select new pack, the new pack is selected from the available channel packs 408”), wherein:
the EPG comprises at least one channel identifier, at least one time identifier, and at least one
content item title (see citation above, PHADNIS’979, [0081], “The execution of step 313 provides the user "My TV Guide" wherein the channel numbers and schedule grid based on his Pack is made available to the user. The execution of step 317 provides the user the "program page" wherein the user is allowed to view, customize and subscribe the program”), and
the at least one channel identifier of the EPG is associated with a new channel comprising access to the content item (PHADNIS’979, [0092], “At step 1402 it requires the user to select the channel, programs from the available recommended programs, channels and packs. The account is updated 1403 with the changed plan according to the selected recommended program, channels/pack”).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 6, Phadnis’632 in view of PHADNIS’979 discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the granting the subscription profile access to the content item comprises adding the new channel comprising access to the content item to the subscription profile (see PHADNIS’979, [0092], “At step 1402 it requires the user to select the channel, programs from the available recommended programs, channels and packs. The account is updated 1403 with the changed plan according to the selected recommended program, channels/pack”).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 6.
11. Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phadnis’632 in view of PHADNIS’979, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Su (US 2016/0098640).
As to claim 7, Phadnis’632 in view of PHADNIS’979 discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the interest in the content item is determined by one or more machine learning techniques. Su discloses an interest in a content item is determined by one or more machine learning techniques ([0053], “the recommendation engine 225 recommends content for a user across and within three categories of TV, movie and sport. The recommendation engine 225 recommends content by generating user specific preference scores for content available to the user through the user device 105 at a specified time interval. The bookkeeping module 505, machine learning module 510, and rules module 525 cooperate to provide preference scores for available content. These three components interact to generate TV, Movie and Sport content recommendations by processing discrete and aggregated viewing activity data and applying a mix of human intelligence and machine learning based analysis to the data”; [0078], “As indicated above, a machine learning module 510 of the recommendation engine 225 (described in greater detail below) assumes responsibility under an embodiment for monitoring user content item viewing activity and for recommending content items”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Phadnis’632 in view of PHADNIS’979 with Su. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide a collaborative filtering technique to recommend contents (Su, [0078]).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Phadnis’632 in view of PHADNIS’979 and Su discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the one or more machine learning techniques comprises:
a predictive model (Su, [0099]; Figure 10) trained using at least one of:
a content catalog for one or more content items, wherein the content catalog comprises a content index based on one or more content attributes of each content item of the one or more content items (Su, [0043], “The content database of an embodiment uses content metadata to define event attributes, i.e., metadata "tags" associated with content that describe or identify the various characteristics of such content. The recommendation engine may then track a user's viewing activity using information collected by the action logger 215 and match learned user preferences to content metadata using event attributes as further described below”, wherein the identifier of the identified attributes is a content index, wherein such content index further serves as an index into a supplemental content catalog/table such as the “NFL Season Calendar” rule table as shown in Figure 8, i.e., an “NFL” indexed attribute of one or more sports content items; see [0069], “The NFL table organizes the NFL season into months and further tracks interest by week. Each Month-Week combination featuring an NFL event (preseason, regular season or post-season game”); or a user map comprising a user index based on past user interest data of the one or more content attributes of the one or more content items (Su, Figure 6, showing a user map comprising four user Bookkeeping Tables such as the League Table tracking user’s usage, e.g., on “NFL” attribute of contents. See also [0054]-[0055, “bookkeeping modules 505 mains a league table, a term table, a player table and a sport type table…The league table includes columns for user id, league, count and time”).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 9, Phadnis’632 in view of PHADNIS’979 and Su discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the one or more content attributes comprises at least one of a title, a genre, a microgenre, an actor, an age, an expiration date, an n-th language, an (n+ 1)-th language, a running time, a time slot, a date of production, a rating, a user-defined content attribute, or a customized content attribute (See citation and Examiner’s explanation in rejection to claim 8, e.g., Su, Figure 8, wherein the attribute is reflected by the League title, “NFL”. See also [0043], “The content database of an embodiment uses content metadata to define event attributes, i.e., metadata "tags" associated with content that describe or identify the various characteristics of such content. The recommendation engine may then track a user's viewing activity using information collected by the action logger 215 and match learned user preferences to content metadata using event attributes as further described below”; [0041], “tag information for online content, event attributes such as whether there is associated online content provided with a live event or broadcast show, user ratings for content collected via the media system 140 or a third party, and social media information”), and wherein the content index comprises a weight for each of the one or more content attributes (Figure 8; [0069], “Each Month-Week combination featuring an NFL event (preseason, regular season or post-season game) is associated with a weighting score”).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 9.
As to claim 10, Phadnis’632 in view of PHADNIS’979 and Su discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the content catalog is mapped to the user map using the content index of each content item of the one or more content items and the user index of each user (Su, [0073], “The recommendation engine 225 receives 1005 a recommendation request in a sport category from the user device. The recommendation engine 225 identifies/retrieves 1010 sporting related content items available to the recommendation engine 225 (e.g., those on or starting within the hour). Using information of a content item (selected from the available content items), the recommendation engine 225 identifies/resolves 1015 attributes of the sporting related content item using information and metadata retrieved from the content store 210”; [0074], “The recommendation engine 225 identifies 1020 bookkeeping tables corresponding to such attributes and identified 1035 all expert rules tables (i.e., weights) corresponding to such attributes. The recommendation engine 225 retrieves 1025 user attribute counts (viewing occurrences) relating to the content item attributes from tables maintained by bookkeeping module 505 in the user profile. The bookkeeping module 505 generates a preference score for the content item based on the attribute counts. For example, the bookkeeping module 505 may aggregate count data across bookkeeping tables to determine the user's preference for the content item based on viewing history”).
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 10.
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