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 .
Claim Status
No claims are amended.
Claim 1 is canceled.
Claims 2-21 are newly added.
Claims 2-21 are presented for examination.
Preliminary amendment filed on 5/2/2025 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 10, 13, 17, 18, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12206944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application are obvious over claims of the US Patent 12206944.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the US Patent 12206944 and the applications are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows:
Instant Application No. 18/981,920
U.S. Patent No. 12206944
Claims 2 and 13 maps to
Claims 1 and 10
Claims 6 and 17
Claim 1
Claim 7 and 18
Claim 3
Claims10 and 21
Claim 4
Claims 3, 4, 14 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12206944 in view of Miller (US 20200409983). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application are obvious over claims of the US Patent 12206944 in view of Miller (US 20200409983).
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the US Patent 12206944 and the applications are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows:
Instant Application No. 18/981,920
U.S. Patent No. 12206944
Claims 3 and 14 maps to
Claims 1 and 10
Claims 4 and 15 maps to
Claim 3
Claims 1 and 10 of US Patent 12206944 claims inventive steps same as of the inventive steps in claims 3 and 14 of instant application. However, claim 1 and 10 of US Patent 12206944 does not claim limitations, “wherein the set of media asset recommendations are caused to be displayed at the user interface in a carousel”
Miller discloses, wherein the set of media asset recommendations are caused to be displayed at the user interface in a carousel (Par. 0022, the content recommendation application may display the identifiers in a grid, where each row represents content items of the same categories. Such an arrangement may be referred to as a carousel stack, where each row is a “carousel,” and a combination of rows is a “stack.”).
It would have been obvious to modify the claims of the U.S. Patent No. 12206944 to include above limitation as taught by Miller, to make user engagement with displayed content item by allowing users to swipe through the displayed content items, making them more interactive and effective.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite various steps that are a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore the steps of, “determining first subset and second subset of asset recommendations, modifying second subset of media recommendation based on user input for first subset of recommendation” in claims 2, and 13 are taken to be steps that human mind can perform. The claims therefore recite the abstract idea of organizing human activity, such as following rules or instructions. Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). MPEP 2106.04(a).
The scope of these claims is limited to “recommended content item to be displayed” via a display device. Microprocessor Enhancement Corp., 520 F.3d 1367, 1375 (emphasis original). Because “practicing the claimed method” includes only steps that are performed by a human, the claims can be interpreted as covering “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.”
The claims include no additional limitations outside of the “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” steps that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The preamble limitations describing the structure of the system in which the method is performed does not describe a practical application of the method steps. For example, using control circuity as recited in claim 13 does not improve, or even alter, the manner in which the information can be collected, analyzed and displaying certain results of the analysis. Nor are the steps recited in claim 2 and 13 implemented using a specialized machine, because these steps are performed by a general purpose computer. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Additionally, even mental processes which may need the physical aids such as pen and paper can be still mental processes (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B)) and even the fact that the claimed invention is performing steps on a computer does not prevent the function from being a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For reasons given above, the claims do not provide improvements to a computer, are not applied using a particular machine, and are only linked to a general technological environment.
Dependent claims 3-12 and 14-21 recite nothing more than well understood, routine and conventional features, such as organizing human activities such as scrolling the carousel, modifying recommendations based on scrolling, rearranging order of the recommendations based on user input, These claims provide nothing beyond the abstract idea that integrates the judicial exception into an abstract idea or amounts to significantly more, thus are likewise ineligible under §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 6-9, 12, 13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cai et al. (US 20230401267).
Regarding claim 2, Cai discloses, A method of providing media asset recommendations based on input to a user interface (Par. 0005, the electronic device may use a learning model resulting from machine learning in order to provide recommended content to a user), the method comprising:
determining a current browsing session corresponding to the user interface (Par. 0048, Content serving system 132 detects the start of a user session by, for example, detecting a login or a page load request received from user interface 112. The content items 216, 218, 220 are assigned to the corresponding slots 202, 204, 206 by content serving system 132 using a first ranking mechanism. The number of slots in Group 1 corresponds to a visible portion of feed 114 that is actually displayed on the user interface 112);
determining a set of media asset recommendations based on the current browsing session, wherein the set of media asset recommendations comprises a first subset of media asset recommendations available for immediate display and a second subset of media asset recommendations available for display after additional user input (Par. 0029, user interface 1112 include a graphical display screen that includes feed 114. Feed 114 includes one or more slots. A slot as used herein refers to a space on a graphical display such as a web page or mobile device screen, into which digital content may be loaded during a content distribution. Par. 0048, fig. 2, content serving system 132 populates a first group of slots 202, 204, 206 (Group 1) of feed 114 with correspondingly ranked content items 216, 218, 220, at the start of a user session, Par. 0049, content serving system 132 also assigns content items 222, 224 to a second group of corresponding slots 208, 210 (Group 2) at the start of the user session. However, as indicated by dashed lines, the Group 2 slots 208, 210 are as-yet unrendered; i.e., not included in the visible portion of feed 114 that is actually displayed on the user interface 112 at the start of the user session. For example, the content items 222, 224 assigned to the Group 2 slots by content serving system 132 are not shown unless or until the user activates a pagination mechanism, such as a scroll-to-load mechanism, i.e. determining subset of content items in content feed, subset of content items in group1 is displayed immediately while content items in group 2 is not displayed till user scrolls to load group 2);
causing the first subset of media asset recommendations to be displayed at the user interface (Par. 0049, content serving system 132 also assigns content items 222, 224 to a second group of corresponding slots 208, 210 (Group 2) at the start of the user session);
receiving a user input to the user interface (Par. 0051, while the user is scrolling the feed 114, asynchronous content switcher 140 receives contextual signals such as feed context data 212 and user activity data 214, Asynchronous content switcher 140 receives the contextual signals directly from user interface 112 or indirectly through an intermediary system such as event logging service 170);
determining a modified second subset of media asset recommendations based on the received user input (Par. 0054, content switcher 140 incorporates the feed context data 212 and user activity data 214 into a second ranking mechanism that re-ranks the Group 2 content items); and
providing the modified second subset of media asset recommendations for display at the user interface (Par. 0084, The front end renders at least a portion 363 of second ranked list 364 in the feed.).
Regarding claim 6, The method of claim 2,
Cai further discloses, wherein the user input to the user interface comprises a user input interaction with the first subset of media asset recommendations (Par. 0051, while the user is scrolling (i.e. user interaction with displayed group 1 media recommendation) the feed 114, asynchronous content switcher 140 receives contextual signals such as feed context data 212 and user activity data 214, Asynchronous content switcher 140 receives the contextual signals directly from user interface 112 or indirectly through an intermediary system such as event logging service 170).
Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 4,
Cai further discloses, wherein the user input interaction with the first subset of media asset recommendations comprises one of (a) scrolling to a next media asset recommendation (Par. 0051, while the user is scrolling the feed 114, asynchronous content switcher 140 receives contextual signals such as feed context data 212 and user activity data 214, Asynchronous content switcher 140 receives the contextual signals directly from user interface 112 or indirectly through an intermediary system such as event logging service 170), (b) selecting a media asset from the first subset of media asset recommendations, (c) playing a selected media asset, (d) indicating a preferred category of content, or (e) closing the first subset of media asset recommendations.
Regarding claim 8, The method of claim 2,
Cai further discloses, wherein:
the second subset of media asset recommendations are arranged in a first order (par. 0050, the ranking process employed by content serving system 132 assigns content items to all of the slots of the entire feed (e.g., both Group 1 and Group 2) at the beginning of the user session, i.e. initially content in group 2 is ranked in specific initial order); and
the determining the modified second subset of media asset recommendations comprises rearranging the second subset of media asset recommendations to determine a second order (Par. 0054, content switcher 140 incorporates the feed context data 212 and user activity data 214 into a second ranking mechanism that re-ranks the Group 2 content items, i.e. later on content in group 2 is reranked in different order than initial order).
Regarding claim 9, The method of claim 2,
Cai further discloses, wherein the determining the modified second subset of media asset recommendations comprises replacing one or more recommended media asset of the second subset with a different recommended media asset (Par. 0055, asynchronous content switcher 140 replaces content item 222 with a different content item 226 and replaces content item 224 with a different content item 228, before slots 208, 210 are rendered in the visible area of feed 114).
Regarding claim 12, The method of claim 2,
Cai further discloses, wherein the second subset of media asset recommendations is stored in a cache at a user device corresponding to the user
Interface (Par. 0048, fig. 2, content serving system 132 populates a first group of slots 202, 204, 206 (Group 1) of feed 114 with correspondingly ranked content items 216, 218, 220, at the start of a user session, Par. 0049, content serving system 132 also assigns content items 222, 224 to a second group of corresponding slots 208, 210 (Group 2) at the start of the user session. However, as indicated by dashed lines, the Group 2 slots 208, 210 are as-yet unrendered; i.e., not included in the visible portion of feed 114 that is actually displayed on the user interface 112 at the start of the user session. For example, the content items 222, 224 assigned to the Group 2 slots by content serving system 132 are not shown unless or until the user activates a pagination mechanism, such as a scroll-to-load mechanism), the method further comprising, based at least in part on determining the modified second subset of media asset recommendations (Par. 0049, content serving system 132 also assigns content items 222, 224 to a second group of corresponding slots 208, 210 (Group 2) at the start of the user session. Par. 0050, the number of slots in each of Group 1 and Group 2 is determined based on the requirements of a particular design or implementation of the method 200. Par. 0055, asynchronous content switcher 140 replaces content item 222 with a different content item 226 and replaces content item 224 with a different content item 228, before slots 208, 210 are rendered in the visible area of feed 114. Content items 226, 228 could be content items of Group 2 that were previously ranked lower than content items 222, 224 or content items 226, 228 could be other content items that were not included in Group 1, Group 2, or one or more other groups, at the start of the user session):
deleting at least one media asset from the cache (Par. 0055, asynchronous content switcher 140 replaces content item 222 with a different content item 226 and replaces content item 224 with a different content item 228, before slots 208, 210 are rendered in the visible area of feed 114. Content items 226, 228 could be content items of Group 2 that were previously ranked lower than content items 222, 224 or content items 226, 228 could be other content items that were not included in Group 1, Group 2, or one or more other groups, at the start of the user session, i.e. modifying content of group 2 (i.e. subset of the media recommendations) by replacing the current content item with other content items that is not part of any other locally stored groups in cache of the client device, replacing the content with another content in stored group in cache = deleting the media asset in the cache); and
storing a new media asset in the cache (Par. 0055, asynchronous content switcher 140 replaces content item 222 with a different content item 226 and replaces content item 224 with a different content item 228, before slots 208, 210 are rendered in the visible area of feed 114. Content items 226, 228 could be content items of Group 2 that were previously ranked lower than content items 222, 224 or content items 226, 228 could be other content items that were not included in Group 1, Group 2, or one or more other groups, at the start of the user session, modifying content of group 2 (i.e. subset of the media recommendations) by replacing the current content item with other content items that is not part of any other locally stored groups in cache of the client device, replacing the content with another content in stored group in cache = deleting the media asset in the cache and adding/storing new media content in to the cache).
Regarding claims 13 and 17-20, Cai meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 2, 6-9 respectively.
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 3-5 and 14-16 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 20230401267), in view of Miller (US 20200409983).
Regarding claim 3, The method of claim 2,
Cai does not disclose, wherein the set of media asset recommendations are caused to be displayed at the user interface in a carousel.
Miller discloses, wherein the set of media asset recommendations are caused to be displayed at the user interface in a carousel (Par. 0022, the content recommendation application may display the identifiers in a grid, where each row represents content items of the same categories. Such an arrangement may be referred to as a carousel stack, where each row is a “carousel,” and a combination of rows is a “stack.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Cai by teaching of the set of media asset recommendations are caused to be displayed at the user interface in a carousel, as taught by Miller, to make user engagement with displayed content item by allowing users to swipe through the displayed content items, making them more interactive and effective.
Regarding claim 4, The method of claim 3,
further comprising:
Cai in view of miller further discloses, receiving a scrolling input to the user interface to scroll through the carousel (Miller Par. 0022, the carousels may be scrollable to show more items that can fit on the screen); and
based at least in part on receiving the scrolling input, causing the modified second subset of media asset recommendations to be displayed at the user interface (Cai Par. 0051, while the user is scrolling the feed 114, asynchronous content switcher 140 receives contextual signals such as feed context data 212 and user activity data 214, Asynchronous content switcher 140 receives the contextual signals directly from user interface 112 or indirectly through an intermediary system such as event logging service 170. Cai Par. 0054, content switcher 140 incorporates the feed context data 212 and user activity data 214 into a second ranking mechanism that re-ranks the Group 2 content items).
Regarding claim 5, The method of claim 4,
Cai further discloses, further comprising, based at least in part on to receiving the scrolling input:
determining a third set of media assets recommendations (par. 0110, the processing device adjusts the density of particular types of content items in the feed by using the asynchronous content switcher to perform group by group ranking. For example, the processing device divides the entire feed into multiple different groups, and then performs the asynchronous content switching on a group-by-group basis. For instance, the content switching ranking mechanism (e.g., mechanism 324) divides the feed into three groups of content items and performs re-ranking of the items in group 3 while the user is viewing the content in group 2, i.e. based on user interaction information received for user interaction with displayed group 1, content stitcher creates more groups and such as group 2 and group 3); and
storing the third set of media assets recommendations in a cache of a user device corresponding to the user interface (Par. 0050, the number of slots in each of Group 1 and Group 2 is determined based on the requirements of a particular design or implementation of the method 200. For example, the number of slots is dependent upon the available screen real estate and/or the size of the available cache on a particular user device. Par. 0110, the processing device adjusts the density of particular types of content items in the feed by using the asynchronous content switcher to perform group by group ranking. For example, the processing device divides the entire feed into multiple different groups, and then performs the asynchronous content switching on a group-by-group basis. For instance, the content switching ranking mechanism (e.g., mechanism 324) divides the feed into three groups of content items and performs re-ranking of the items in group 3 while the user is viewing the content in group 2. The processing device writes the re-ranked group 3 items into a content item cache (e.g., cache 328) while the user is viewing and scrolling through the group 2 content, i.e. content groups are stored in cache of the user device, such as group 1, group 2, and group 3).
Regarding claims 14-16, Cai in view of Miller meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 3-5.
Claims 10, 11, and 21 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 20230401267), in view of Yasir (US 20210321165).
Regarding claim 10, The method of claim 2,
Cai does not disclose, wherein the set of media asset recommendations are determined by a media asset recommendation model comprising a plurality of states.
Yasir discloses, wherein the set of media asset recommendations are determined by a media asset recommendation model comprising a plurality of states (Par. 0028, The recommendation engine 210 thus outputs a set of recommended content for the genres output by machine learning model 200).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Cai by teaching of the set of media asset recommendations are determined by a media asset recommendation model comprising a plurality of states., as taught by Yasir, to recommend popular content categories to new user using learning model, as disclosed in Yasir par. 0025.
Regarding claim 11, The method of claim 10,
Cai in view of Yasir further discloses, wherein: the plurality of states corresponds to a plurality of categories of content (Yasir Par. 0011, preferred genres for the user may be shifted toward genres of content the user has recently viewed or liked, or, in other examples, shifted away from genres of content the user has recently disliked. Content may then be selected according to the revised set of preferred genres. The content selected may differ from previously selected content recommendations, as the underlying genre preferences of the user may have changed according to his or her behavior, i.e. changing state of the browsing sessions includes plurality of different genre); and
receiving the user input to the user interface adjusts a state of the current browsing session (Yasir Par. 0011, preferred genres for the user may be shifted toward genres of content the user has recently viewed or liked, or, in other examples, shifted away from genres of content the user has recently disliked. Content may then be selected according to the revised set of preferred genres. The content selected may differ from previously selected content recommendations, as the underlying genre preferences of the user may have changed according to his or her behavior, i.e. changing state of the browsing from one genre to another genre based on user input).
Regarding claim 21, Cai in view of Yasir meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKSHAY DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM to 6:00 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, JOHN W MILLER can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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.
/A.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights