DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Note: Preliminary amendment filed 03/24/2025 has been received and considered. Claim 1 has been canceled and claims 2-21 have been newly added.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,738.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,818,439.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,477,535.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,664.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Craner (US 2011/0099572).
Regarding claim 2, Craner discloses a method comprising:
generating for display, at a first user device associated with a first user profile, a plurality of media assets (content are displayed so a supervisor can select and add individual media content and channels to a palette; see at least Fig. 7 and paragraph 0071, wherein users have user profiles; see a least paragraphs 0043, 0053 and 0063);
receiving, at the first user device, a selection of a plurality of approved media assets from the plurality of media assets, wherein the plurality of approved media assets are approved for consumption for a second user associated with a second user profile (supervisor may choose to create a new palette that has media content and the inclusion of media content into a palette means that the supervisor has deemed this material to be appropriate for viewing; see at least paragraphs 0067-0075 and 0079-0081);
generating for display, at a second user device associated with the second user profile, a first one or more approved media assets of the plurality of approved media assets (the palette is presented to a user; see at least paragraphs 0090-0092, wherein users have user profiles; see a least paragraphs 0043, 0053 and 0063);
based on receiving, from the second user profile, an expression of disinterest in an approved
media asset of the first one or more approved media assets, updating an attribute of the second user profile (users can rate the content during or after the palette presentation and the ratings are saved; see at least paragraphs 0090-0092);
generating for display, at the second user device, a second one or more approved media assets of the plurality of approved media assets based on the updated attribute of the second user profile (the rating submissions can assist the authorized supervisor in setting up and maintaining palettes. For example, the supervisor may choose to discontinue or remove media content that consistently receives poor rating and the rating submissions are used in suggesting media content for inclusion in a palette which can be displayed to the user again; see at least paragraphs 0090-0092); and
generating for display, at the first user device, a recommendation of a third media asset for inclusion in the plurality of approved media assets based on the updated attribute of the second user profile (rating submissions are used in suggesting media content for inclusion in a palette which can be displayed to the user again; see at least paragraphs 0090-0092).
Regarding claim 3, Craner discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the second user profile comprises a plurality of attribute types and corresponding weights (rating; see at least paragraphs 0004, 0083 and 0090-0092).
Regarding claim 4, Craner discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the corresponding weights are initialized to default values based on an age associated with the second user profile (rating; see at least paragraphs 0004, 0083 and 0090-0092).
Regarding claim 5, Craner discloses the method of claim 3, wherein updating the attribute of the second user profile comprises decreasing a weight associated with the attribute (poor rating; see at least paragraphs 0090-0092).
Regarding claim 6, Craner discloses the method of claim 5, wherein decreasing the weight associated with the attribute is based on determining that a number of expressions of disinterest in the approved media asset is greater than a threshold number (poor rating; see at least paragraphs 0090-0092).
Regarding claim 7, Craner discloses the method of claim 2, wherein receiving the expression of disinterest in the approved media asset comprises at least one of:
receiving a request from the second user device to remove the approved media asset from
the first one or more approved media assets;
receiving a request from the second user device to terminate playback of the approved media asset before a threshold time has elapsed from a start time of the playback of the approved media asset; or
determining that a proportion of the first media asset viewed uninterrupted by the second user device is less than a threshold proportion (receiving poor ratings from palette viewers will cause the supervisor to discontinue or remove media content; see at least paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 8, Craner discloses the method of claim 2, wherein receiving the expression of disinterest in the approved media asset comprises:
receiving feedback about the approved media asset from the second user device (in terms of ratings; see at least paragraph 0091)); and
determining that the feedback corresponds to a pre-defined expression of disinterest (see at least paragraph 0091)).
Regarding claim 9, Craner discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the expression of disinterest is a first expression of disinterest and the method further comprises:
receiving, from the first user device, a second expression of disinterest in the third media
asset (see at least paragraphs 0090-0092);
based on receiving the second expression of disinterest, further updating the attribute of the
second user profile (see at least paragraphs 0090-0092); and
generating for display, at the first user device, a recommendation of a fourth media asset for
inclusion in the plurality of approved media assets based on the further updated attribute of the
second user profile (rating submissions are used in suggesting media content for inclusion in a palette which can be displayed to the user again; see at least paragraphs 0090-0092).
Regarding claim 10, Craner discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the attribute of the second user profile comprises one of:
a genre;
an actor;
a director;
a producer;
a studio;
a plot;
key words; or
key sequences (see at least paragraphs 0004 and 0083).
Regarding claim 11, Craner discloses the method of claim 2, wherein generating for display, at the second user device, the second one or more approved media assets comprises:
comparing attributes of each of the plurality of approved media assets to attributes of the
second user profile to determine a plurality of corresponding similarity coefficients; and
selecting the second one or more approved media assets from the plurality of approved
media assets for display based on the plurality of corresponding similarity coefficients (comparing known attributes to acceptable attribute range; see a least paragraph 0083).
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 20.
Claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/YASSIN ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights