DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojancic et al. (US20190373310, hereinafter Stojancic) in view of Ward (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Stojancic discloses a method comprising:
identifying pre-event, interval, and post-event segments of a live event (see Stojancic, at least at [0014], [0017], [0052]-[0053], [0076], and other related text);
determining a user preference for one or more types of content for each of the pre-event, interval, and post-event segments of the live event (see Stojancic, at least at [0014], [0017], [0052]-[0053], [0076], and other related text) based at least in part on a user profile (see Stojancic, at least at [0014], [0017], [0052]-[0053], [0076], [0110], and other related text) and content consumption data associated with the user profile (see Stojancic, at least at [0110], [0137]-[0141], and other related text); and
generating for display a plurality of media streams based at least in part on the determined user preference (see Stojancic, at least at [0060]-[0063], [0075], [0098], [0110], [0114], [0117], and other related text).
Stojancic does not specifically disclose the generated display comprises one or more user selectable options to switch between the plurality of media content streams.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing content, Ward discloses generating for display a plurality of media content streams (see Ward, at least at [0012], [0019], [0021]-[0023], [0042]-[0043], and other related text) based at least in part on the determined user preference (see Ward, at least at [0038]-[0039], [0042]-[0043], [0046], [0050]-[0051], [0065], and other related text), wherein the generated display comprises one or more user selectable options to switch between the plurality of media content streams (i.e., manual selection of windows, see Ward, at least at [0019]-[0020], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Stojancic to include the limitations as taught by Ward for the advantage of efficiently displaying preferred content to a user.
Claims 2-5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojancic (previously cited) in view Ward (previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (US20090089352, hereinafter Davis).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Stojancic in view of Ward discloses automatically switching between the plurality of media content stream (see Ward, at least at [0023], and other related text), but does not specifically disclose the switching being based at least in part on the user profile and the content consumption data associated with the user profile.
In an analogous art relating to a system for managing media, Davis discloses automatically switching between the plurality of media content stream based at least in part on the user profile and the content consumption data associated with the user profile (see Davis, at least at [0008], [0039]-[0040], [0069], [0113], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Stojancic in view of Ward to include the limitations as taught by Davis for the advantage of more efficiently displaying the most desired content to a user.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Stojancic in view of Ward, and further in view of Davis discloses wherein the automatic switching between the plurality of media content streams is based at least in part on a combination of user interest, content availability, and metadata analysis (see Davis, at least at [0008], [0039]-[0040], [0062], [0069], [0073]-[0075], [0113], and other related text).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Stojancic in view of Ward, and further in view of Davis discloses determining a priority media content stream of the plurality of media content streams based at least in part on the user profile and the content consumption data associated with the user profile (see Davis, at least at [0127], and other related text); and
generating for display the priority media content stream (see Davis, at least at [0008], [0039]-[0040], [0062], [0069], [0073]-[0075], [0113], [0127], and other related text).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Stojancic in view of Ward, and further in view of Davis discloses determining a priority media content stream of the plurality of media content streams based at least in part on real-time user interactions and feedback (see Davis, at least at [0058], [0085], [0091], [0127], and other related text); and
generating for display the priority media content stream (see Davis, at least at [0008], [0039]-[0040], [0062], [0069], [0073]-[0075], [0113], [0127], and other related text).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojancic (previously cited) in view Ward (previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Long et al. (US20170157512, hereinafter Long) and Suoknuuti et al. (US20160234566, hereinafter Suoknuuti).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Stojancic in view of Ward discloses wherein the pre-event segment comprises live interviews (see Stojancic, at least at [0051]-[0055], [0073], and other related text), but does not specifically disclose crowd gatherings, and expert panel discussions.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing content, Long discloses pre-event segments including crowd gatherings (see Long, at least at [0058], [0078], [0101], [0111], [0114]-[0115], [0133]-[0134], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Stojancic in view of Ward to include the limitations as taught by Long for the advantage of more efficiently displaying the most desired content to a user.
Stojancic in view of Ward, and further in view of Long does not specifically disclose expert panel discussions.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing content, Suoknuuti discloses pre-event segments including expert panel discussions (see Suoknuuti, at least at [0003]-[0004], [0132], [0158], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Stojancic in view of Ward and Long to include the limitations as taught by Suoknuuti for the advantage of more efficiently displaying the most desired content to a user.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojancic (previously cited) in view Ward (previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suoknuuti (previously cited).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Stojancic in view of Ward discloses wherein the interval segment comprises highlights, and analysis, and statistics (see Stojancic, at least at [0051]-[0055], [0112], and other related text), but does not specifically disclose expert analysis.
In an analogous art relating to a system for providing content, Suoknuuti discloses interval segments including expert analysis (see Suoknuuti, at least at [0003]-[0004], [0132], [0158], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Stojancic in view of Ward to include the limitations as taught by Suoknuuti for the advantage of more efficiently displaying the most desired content to a user.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Stojancic in view of Ward, and further in view of Suoknuuti discloses wherein the post-event segment comprises interviews, celebrations, and expert discussions (see Stojancic, at least at [0051]-[0060], [0073], and other related text, and see Suoknuuti, at least at [0003]-[0004], [0132], [0158], and other related text).
Claims 9 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojancic (previously cited) in view Ward (previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US20180275948, hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Stojancic in view of Ward does not specifically disclose casting the generated display from one device to another.
In an analogous art relating to a system for presenting information, Xu discloses casting a generated display from one device to another (see Xu, at least at [0033], [0048], [0070], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Stojancic in view of Ward to include the limitations as taught by Xu for the advantage of more efficiently displaying content to users.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojancic (previously cited) in view Ward (previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Soni et al. (US10168982, hereinafter Soni).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Stojancic in view of Ward discloses generating for display one of the at least two of the plurality of media content streams on a main display and generating for display another of the at least two of the plurality of media streams including the concurrent live content (see rejections above), but does not specifically disclose based at least in part on determining that at least one additional display is available:
generating for display another of the at least two of the plurality of media streams including the concurrent live content on the at least one additional display determined to be available.
In an analogous art relating to a system for presenting content, Soni discloses based at least in part on determining that at least one additional display is available (see Soni, at least at col 12, lines 12-38, and other related text):
generating for display one of the at least two pieces of content on a main display (see Soni, at least at col 2, lines 31-40, col 3, lines 9-26 and lines 36-55, col 12, lines 12-38, and other related text); and
generating for display another of the at least two of the pieces of content on the at least one additional display determined to be available (see Soni, at least at col 2, lines 31-40, col 3, lines 9-26 and lines 36-55, col 12, lines 12-38, and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Stojancic in view of Ward to include the limitations as taught by Soni for the advantage of more efficiently displaying content to a user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENEA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9524 and whose email address is CHENEA.SMITH@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. 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.
/CHENEA DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421