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 .
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 11 and 20 of the instant application capture a broader version of the metes and bounds of the invention already deemed patentable by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,706, as follows:
Instant Application Claims 1, 11 and 20
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,706
1. A system comprising:
a database comprising program records each identifying a television (TV) program and including historical presentation-logistics (PL) features, content-descriptor (CD) features, and historical viewer-rating (VR) metrics, wherein the historical PL features comprise information identifying a content-delivery platform that previously sourced the TV program for end-user viewing and specifying a delivery mode used to deliver the TV program, and a release-schedule drop pattern (RSDP) that was used by the content-delivery platform for viewing availability and/or delivery, wherein the CD features characterize the TV program, and wherein the historical VR metrics comprise, for the historical PL features, statistical quantification of viewing performance of the TV program among one or more audience categories;
1. A system comprising:
a database of television (TV) viewing data comprising program records for a multiplicity of existing TV programs, each program record identifying a respective TV program and including, for the respective TV program, a first set of historical presentation-logistics (PL) features, a second set of content-descriptor (CD) features, and a third set of historical viewer-rating (VR) metrics, wherein the historical PL features comprise information identifying a content-delivery platform that previously sourced the respective TV program for end-user viewing, and specifying a delivery mode used to deliver the respective TV program and a release-schedule drop pattern (RSDP) that was used by the content-delivery platform for viewing availability and/or program delivery, wherein the CD features comprise information characterizing media content of the respective TV program, and wherein the historical VR metrics comprise, for the historical PL features, statistical quantification of viewing performance of the respective TV program among one or more audience categories;
one or more processors;
one or more processors;
and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to carry out operations including:
and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to carry out operations including:
for each of the program records, identifying from among the program records a most similar TV program based on a quantitative comparison of the CD features of the program record with those of the other program records, wherein the most similar TV program is different from the program of the program record;
for each given program record of at least a subset of the program records of the training plurality, identifying from among the training plurality a most similar TV program based on a quantitative comparison of CD features of the given program record with those of the other program records of the training plurality, wherein the most similar TV program is different from the respective program of the given program record;
for each of the program records, creating a synthetic program record comprising the historical PL features from the program record and the CD features of the most similar TV program;
based on each given program record and its identified most similar TV program, creating a synthetic program record comprising historical PL features from the given program record, CD features of the most similar TV program, and with historical VR metrics omitted and/or replaced with null values;
by applying the program records and the synthetic program records as input and the historical VR metrics of the program records as ground-truths, training a machine- learning (ML) model to predict audience performance metrics of the TV programs of the program records;
by applying an aggregate of the training plurality of program records and the synthetic program records as input and historical VR features of the training plurality of program records as ground-truths, training a machine-learning (ML) model to predict audience performance metrics of the respective TV programs of the training plurality of program records;
and configuring the ML model for predicting audience performance metrics of one or more runtime program records respectively associated with hypothetical TV programs not yet available for viewing and/or not yet transmitted.
and configuring the trained ML model for predicting audience performance metrics of one or more runtime program records respectively associated with hypothetical TV programs not yet available for viewing and/or not yet transmitted.
Claims 2-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2-10 of the instant application capture a broader version of the metes and bounds of the invention already deemed patentable by claims 2-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,706.
Claims 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 12-19 of the instant application capture a broader version of the metes and bounds of the invention already deemed patentable by claims 12-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,706.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hutchings et al. (Pub No US 2023/0410130) – trained machine-learning model using the content consumption metrics, wherein the trained machine-learning model generates a prediction of future audience metrics associated with the set of users; paragraphs [0046] [0047].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm EST..
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424