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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Claims 21-22 have been newly added.
Claims 1-22 are pending.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed on 07/15/2026, with respect to the rejection 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-2, 4, 9-10, 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boudreau et al (US 2020/0084498).
Regarding claim 1, Boudreau discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and from one or more sensors, signals indicating different attention levels of a plurality of users who are viewing a first content item (¶ [0038]-[0041], ¶ [0048] and ¶ [0067]-[0068]); and
based on the different attention levels of the plurality of users, causing output of a second content item (¶ [0049], ¶ [0059]-[0060] and ¶ [0068]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 2, Boudreau discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Boudreau further discloses wherein the signals indicate an eye gaze of each of the plurality of users (¶ [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Boudreau discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Boudreau further discloses wherein the signals indicate a facial expression of at least one of the plurality of users (¶ [0040]-[0041] and ¶ [0056]).
Regarding claim 9, Boudreau discloses a method comprising:
determining feedback of a plurality of users who are looking in a direction of a computing device that is outputting a first content item (¶ [0036]-[0041], ¶ [0044]-[0048] and ¶ [0067]-[0068]);
selecting, based on an attention level comprising feedback of the plurality of users during the outputting of the first content item, a second content item of a plurality of second content items; and causing output of a second content item (¶ [0049], ¶ [0059]-[0060] and ¶ [0068]-[0069]).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, all limitations of claims 10 and 12 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claims 2 and 4 respectively.
Regarding claim 22, Boudreau discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Boudreau further discloses wherein the causing output of the second content item causes output of the second content item to the plurality of users who are viewing the first content item (¶ [0014] and ¶ [0051]-[0052]).
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 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreau et al (US 2020/0084498) in view of Govezensky et al (US 2016/0364012).
Regarding claim 3, Boudreau discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Boudreau further discloses the signals indicate eye gaze (¶ [0038]-[0039]), but is silent about audio captured proximate to the plurality of users.
Govezensky discloses the signal indicates eye gaze and audio captured proximate to the plurality of users (¶ [0028]-[0030] and ¶ [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boudreau system with the teaching of Govezensky, so to enhance system with a wider range of sensing information from users’ response during presentation of content to adaptively change to other content corresponding to users’ response in the benefits of improving user viewing experience.
Regarding claim 11, all limitations of claim 11 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claim 3.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreau et al (US 2020/0084498) in view of Igarashi (US 2020/0074994).
Regarding claim 5, Boudreau discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Boudreau is silent about a time of output of the second content item is based on a comparison of: the signals indicating detected speech from one or more of the plurality of users and a transcript of the first content item.
Igarashi discloses the time of the output of the second content item is based on a comparison of detected speech from one or more of the plurality of users and a transcript of the first content item (¶ [0134]-[0150]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boudreau system with the teaching of Igarashi, so to provide an alternative way of processing and receiving content information being displayed based on tracking user’s speeches.
Regarding claim 13, all limitations of claim 13 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claim 5.
Claim 6, 8 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreau et al (US 2020/0084498) in view of Lal et al (US 2024/0205464).
Regarding claim 6, Boudreau discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Boudreau is silent about the signals indicate: body position and heart rate of at least one of the plurality of users.
Lal discloses the signals indicate: body position and heart rate of at least one of the plurality of users (¶ [0033], ¶ [0053]-[0055] and ¶ [0022]-[0124]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boudreau system with the teaching of Lal, so to enhance system with a wider range of sensing information from users’ response during presentation of content to adaptively change to other content corresponding to users’ response in the benefits of improving user viewing experience.
Regarding claim 8, Boudreau discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Boudreau is silent about storing information indicating a plurality of secondary content items; and for each of the secondary content items, relative importance values for a first type of feedback and a second type of feedback.
Lal discloses storing information indicating a plurality of secondary content items; and for each of the secondary content items, relative importance values for a first type of feedback and a second type of feedback (Figures1, 8-10; ¶ [0057], ¶ [0108]-[0110] and ¶ [0138]-[0147]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boudreau system with the teaching of Lal, so to enable quickly to select secondary content corresponding to all types of users’ responses.
Regarding claim 17, Boudreau discloses a method comprising:
determining feedback, from one or more sensors, of a user who is looking in a direction of a computing device that is outputting a first content item (¶ [0036]-[0041], ¶ [0044]-[0048] and ¶ [0067]-[0068]);
selecting, based on an attention level comprising the feedback, a second content item; and causing, based on the selection, output of the second content item (¶ [0049], ¶ [0059]-[0060] and ¶ [0068]-[0069]).
Boudreau is silent about the feedback indicates body position and heartrate during the outputting of the first content item.
Lal discloses the signals indicate body position and heart rate of at least one of the plurality of users during the outputting of the first content item (¶ [0033], ¶ [0053]-[0055] and ¶ [0022]-[0124]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boudreau system with the teaching of Lal, so to enhance system with a wider range of sensing information from users’ response during presentation of content to adaptively change to other content corresponding to users’ response in the benefits of improving user viewing experience.
Regarding claim 18, Boudreau in view of Lal discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 17. The combined system further discloses wherein the selecting the second content item is based on an elevated heartrate of the user and the user facing towards the first content item (taught by Lal; ¶ [0033], ¶ [0054], ¶ [0119] and ¶ [0123]-[0124]).
Regarding claim 19, Boudreau in view of Lal discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 17. The combined system further discloses wherein the selecting the second content item is based on a resting heartrate of the user and the user facing towards the first content item (taught by Lal; ¶ [0033], ¶ [0054], ¶ [0119] and ¶ [0123]-[0124]).
Regarding claim 20, Boudreau in view of Lal discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 17. The combined system further discloses wherein the selecting the second content item is based on the user facing away from the first content item (taught by Lal; ¶ [0033] and ¶ [0171]-[0176]).
Claims 7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreau et al (US 2020/0084498) in view of Ono et al (US 2017/0277500).
Regarding claim 7, Boudreau discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Boudreau further discloses is silent about storing information associating a plurality of secondary content items and a corresponding plurality of different attention thresholds that are to be met by the plurality of users before a corresponding secondary content is to be outputted.
Ono discloses storing information associating a plurality of secondary content items and a corresponding plurality of different attention thresholds that are to be met by the plurality of users before a corresponding secondary content is to be outputted (Figures 9 and 22; ¶ [0050]-[0054], ¶ [0064]-[0065] and ¶ [0155]-[0156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boudreau system with the teaching of Ono, so to maintain an association between contents and their corresponding interest or attention levels of users to accurately retrieve interested content for displaying to users in the benefits of improving user viewing experience.
Regarding claim 15, all limitations of claim 15 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, Boudreau discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 9. Boudreau is silent about the selecting the second content item is based on based on proximity of the plurality of users to a location of the computing device that is outputting the first content item.
Ono discloses the selecting the second content item is based on based on proximity of the plurality of users to a location of the computing device that is outputting the first content item (¶ [0060]-[0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boudreau system with the teaching of Ono, so to enhance system with a wider range of sensing information from users’ response during presentation of content to adaptively change to other content corresponding to users’ response in the benefits of improving user viewing experience.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreau et al (US 2020/0084498) in view of Igarashi (US 2020/0074994) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lal et al (US 2024/0205464).
Regarding claim 14, Boudreau in view of Igarashi discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 13. The combined system is silent about the feedback indicates a body position and a heart rate of at least one of the plurality of users.
Lal discloses the feedback indicates a body position and a heart rate of at least one of the plurality of users (¶ [0033], ¶ [0053]-[0055] and ¶ [0022]-[0124]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boudreau in view of Igarashi system with the teaching of Lal, so to enhance system with a wider range of sensing information from users’ response during presentation of content to adaptively change to other content corresponding to users’ response in the benefits of improving user viewing experience.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreau et al (US 2020/0084498) in view of Gross (US 2013/0237775).
Regarding claim 21, Boudreau discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Boudreau further discloses selecting, by the computing device, the second content item based on information prioritizing first signals of attention levels over a threshold value (¶ [0011]-[0014], ¶ [0049] and ¶ [0059]-[0060]), but is silent about based on information prioritized first signals from a first sensor of the one or more sensors, over second signals from a second sensor of the one or more sensors.
Gross discloses selecting the content item based on information prioritized first signals from a first sensor of the one or more sensors, over second signals from a second sensor of the one or more sensors (¶ [0005]-[0006] and ¶ [0052]-[0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boudreau system with the teaching of Gross, so to provide an alternative way of selecting content utilizing signal of prioritized sensors as a matter of designed choices.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI L DUBASKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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 571-272-1915. 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.
/GIGI L DUBASKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights