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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 7 and 8, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2, 4-12 and 14-21 under have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Vaughn and Strothman.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/13/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent No. 11,778,271 and 12,219,211 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-12 and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughn et al. (hereinafter ‘Vaughn’, Pub. No. 2021/0073264) in view of Strothman et al. (hereinafter ‘Strothman’, WO 03/065150).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Vaughn teaches a system (100, Fig. 1) (with corresponding method) comprising:
memory storing instructions; control circuitry configured (These elements are inherent in computing devices as seen on fig. 6) to execute the instructions to:
receive one or more user commands indicative of a user's characteristic reaction to one or more segments of content having an associated level of impropriety ([0018]; [0019];[0028]-[0030]);
based on the received commands, generate user sensibility data associating one or more restrictive actions for segments of content having an associated level of impropriety ([0016]-[0018]; [0028]-[0030], where after monitoring user’s reactions, interactions, on viewing sessions, social network reactions to media, etc.; the system generates user profiles with limits and tolerances for different topics and media, and the respective restrictive action);
determine a first level of impropriety for a first segment of content (every content is analyzed per segments, classified and scored for their impropriety/adequacy, [0031]-[0035]);
determine whether the user sensibility data includes one or more restrictive actions associated with the first level of impropriety of the first segment of content ([0016]-[0018]; [0028]-[0030]);
in response to determining that the user sensibility data does include one or more restrictive actions associated with the first level of impropriety of the first segment of content, perform the one or more restrictive actions on the first segment of content (the system dynamically evaluates if a segment of the content is appropriate for the user based on both segment scores and users’ tolerances, and modifies it accordingly. A given segment is accessed if there is no corresponding restriction after evaluation, [0011]; [0022]; [0034]);
determine a second level of impropriety for a second segment of content (every content is analyzed per segments, classified and scored for their impropriety/adequacy, [0031]-[0035]);
determine whether the user sensibility data includes one or more restrictive actions associated with the second level of impropriety of the second segment of content ([0016]-[0018]; [0028]-[0030]); and
in response to determining that the user sensibility data does not include one or more restrictive actions associated with the second level of impropriety of the second segment of content, generate the second segment of content for display without restricting viewing of the second segment of content (the system dynamically evaluates if a segment of the content is appropriate for the user based on both segment scores and users’ tolerances, and modifies it accordingly. A given segment is not accessed if there is corresponding restriction after evaluation, [0011]; [0022]; [0034]).
On the other hand, Vaughn does not explicitly teach
based at least in part on generating for display samples of content from each of a plurality of levels of impropriety.. corresponding to respective levels of the plurality of levels of impropriety.
However, in an analogous art, Strothman teaches a system that allows a user for setting parental control (Abstract; page 3 lines 22-29). The system allows users to input/indicate the system what type of content corresponds to a given rating (Fig. 3; page 8 lines 5-24). The system presents samples with corresponding given rating and the user can change it to show his/her tolerance. The samples could be text, audio or video for the user to agree on the given rating (page 5 lines 24-32; page 7 lines 8-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vaughn’s invention with Strothman’s feature of displaying samples of content of a plurality of levels of impropriety for the benefit of given a user an option to represent his/her impropriety tolerance.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Vaughn and Strothman teach further comprising:
receiving a user command selecting a content item for display; generating the content item for display; and updating the user sensibility data based on commands received in response to generating the content item for display (Vaughn: [0016]-[0021]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Vaughn and Strothman teach wherein each segment of content has an associated level of impropriety in relation to each of a plurality of aspects of impropriety (Vaughn: Fig. 5; [0033]; [0034]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Vaughn and Strothman teach further comprising classifying a level of impropriety of an upcoming segment of a content item whilst generating for display a current segment of the same content item (Vaughn: [0016]; where the filtering could be live).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Vaughn and Strothman teach further comprising generating for display an invitation to the user to override the one or more restrictive actions associated with determined level of impropriety of the first segment of content (Vaughn: warning message, [0015]; [0018]; [0021]; [0023]).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Vaughn and Strothman teach further comprising generating for display an invitation to the user to accept the one or more restrictive actions associated with determined level of impropriety of the first segment of content (Vaughn: warning message, [0015]; [0021]; [0023]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Vaughn and Strothman teach wherein the first segment of content comprises audio content, and the one or more restrictive actions comprise muting the audio content, and masking the audio content with a sound (Vaughn: [0015]; [0016]; [0018]; [0020]).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Vaughn and Strothman teach wherein the one or more restrictive actions comprise any one or more of: fast forward the first segment of content, blur the first segment of content, skip the first segment of content, or play an advertisement in place of the first segment of content (Vaughn: [0015]; [0016]; [0018]; [0020]).
Regarding claims 11 and 21, Vaughn and Strothman teach further comprising generating for display a notification notifying the user of imminent display of the first segment of content, and the first level of impropriety of the first segment of content (Vaughn: warning message, [0015]; [0018]; [0021]; [0023]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Arme et al. (Pub. No. 2013/0297706): the system allows user to input ratings to different displayed segments for parental control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR S PARRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Mostly 10-6PM.
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 at 571-2721915. 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.
/OMAR S PARRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights