DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s preliminary amendment (dated 12 AUGUST 2025), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 2-21 are currently pending in the application.
Examiner’s Note
It is noted to Applicant that Allowable subject matter has been indicated in related Applications 15/903,401 and 16/750,258. Applicant is suggested to try and incorporate similar Allowable content into the current Application’s claims to try and move prosecution forward to an Allowance. Applicant is also cautioned not to repeat allowable subject matter in a manner that could lead to a double patenting rejection. This is just a note and suggestion by the Examiner, any amendments made by Applicant will be searched thoroughly before a final indication on Allowability is made.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,582,229 in view of Fish, US 7,966,218 and Lechner et al., US 2013/0219424. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current Application's claims are only worded in a way that slightly attempts to differ them from the claims of the Patent while still leading to the same inventive outcome/concept.
Additionally, although the Patent discloses the majority of the currently claimed limitations, the Patent does not explicitly disclose a media device is remote from a playback device;
determining whether a number of days between a current date and a date associated with a media asset exceeds a threshold number of days; and
wherein operations are performed based on determining that the number of days between the current date and the date associated with the media asset exceeds the threshold number of days.
However, in a related art, Fish does disclose a media device is remote from a playback device (system elements/devices can be remote from each other; col. 6, lines 38-55, and col. 9, lines 31-34, and col. 12, lines 40-45, and col. 15, lines 45-48, and with external, i.e. remote, and connected peripherals/devices; col. 11, lines 15-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Patent and Fish to arrive at the claimed subject matter, by allowing devices to be remote/external from one another, in order to provide an improved system and method for content management of recordings of media content (Fish; col. 1, lines 20-23).
The Patent in view of Fish still does not explicitly disclose determining whether a number of days between a current date and a date associated with a media asset exceeds a threshold number of days; and
wherein operations are performed based on determining that the number of days between the current date and the date associated with the media asset exceeds the threshold number of days.
However, in a related art, Lechner does disclose determining whether a number of days between a current date and a date associated with a media asset exceeds a threshold number of days (based on a date and timestamp of when a program was recorded, system can compare with the current date and time in order to determine age of the program in relation to a threshold number of days; page 5, paragraph 58); and
wherein operations are performed based on determining that the number of days between the current date and the date associated with the media asset exceeds the threshold number of days (if determined that age is not older than threshold number of days, will not replace/insert any ads, and if over threshold number of days, will replace/insert ads; page 5, paragraphs 59-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Patent, Fish, and Lechner to arrive at the claimed subject matter by allowing advertisements to be replaced/inserted based on analysis with respect to how old a recording is in relation to a threshold, in order to provide an improved system and method for identifying an age, comparing the age to a threshold time period, and obtaining a replacement ad in response to a comparison indicating that the age exceeds the threshold time period (Lechner; see abstract).
Claims 2-21 are additionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1-6, 8, 10-15, and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,418 in view of Fish, US 7,966,218. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current Application's claims are only worded in a way that slightly attempts to differ them from the claims of the Patent while still leading to the same inventive outcome/concept.
Additionally, although the Patent discloses the majority of the currently claimed limitations, the Patent does not explicitly disclose a media device is remote from a playback device.
However, in a related art, Fish does disclose a media device is remote from a playback device (system elements/devices can be remote from each other; col. 6, lines 38-55, and col. 9, lines 31-34, and col. 12, lines 40-45, and col. 15, lines 45-48, and with external, i.e. remote, and connected peripherals/devices; col. 11, lines 15-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Patent and Fish to arrive at the claimed subject matter, by allowing devices to be remote/external from one another, in order to provide an improved system and method for content management of expired recordings of media content (Fish; col. 1, lines 20-23).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims recite the limitation “…for insertion into the later first media asset…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as no “later first media asset” has been previously identified and/or defined in these claims or any of the claims from which they depend.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 6, 11-12, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fish, US 7,966,218 in view of Kawasaki et al., US 2003/0190150.
Regarding claim 2, Fish discloses a method for managing media assets stored in a media device, the method comprising:
prior to receiving selection of a first stored media asset for playback (operations being performed prior to selection/play operations; col. 3, lines 46-65, and Fig. 1, and wherein program includes at least one of multiple programs which can be stored at specific times; col. 3, lines 39-41, and col. 4, lines 6-8 and 46-51):
determining a first age of the first stored media asset and a second age of the second stored media asset (system can access metadata in order to determine recording timing information for the programs, col. 4, lines 46-51);
determining, based on the first age and the second age, that the first stored media asset is older than the second stored media asset (system can access metadata in order to determine recording timing information for the programs, col. 4, lines 46-51, and based on this information determination of the oldest recording, i.e. recording with the oldest age and/or greater data wherein the other programs are considered newer than the determined oldest; col. 5, lines 20-22, and wherein these determinations can be based on comparison operations; col. 4, lines 28-31, and dates can be compared in relation to other entries; col. 6, lines 61-63); and
based at least in part on determining: retrieving a pointer to an advertisement (based on determinations, particular advertisement can be selected; col. 8, lines 18-19, and Fig. 4B, element 460, and from storage, including databases; col. 8, lines 35-40, and col. 12, lines 30-37, and col. 15, lines 55-61, and wherein with use of flags to specific ads; col. 8, lines 27-30, and again including databases; col. 8, lines 35-40, and col. 12, lines 30-37, and col. 15, lines 55-61); and
associating the pointer with a play position in the first stored media asset (play position with a stale advertisement; col. 8, lines 18-19, and Fig. 4A, element 407, and Fig. 4B, element 420, and flag at specific play position; col. 8, lines 27-30);
causing playback of the first stored media asset based at least in part on receiving a selection of the first stored media asset for playback (user selection of stored content for viewing/playback; col. 5, lines 34-42, and col. 7, lines 4-9); and
when playback of the first stored media asset reaches the play position (reaching/occurrence of the flag causes retrieval of specific ad; col. 8, lines 35-38, and including databases; col. 8, lines 35-40, and col. 12, lines 30-37, and col. 15, lines 55-61):
pausing playback of the first stored media asset, beginning playback of the advertisement based on the pointer, and based at least in part on determining that playback of the advertisement has completed, resuming playback of the first stored media asset (system can jump from the currently playing program to a replacement ad, i.e. effectively pausing the original programming at that point, and then upon completion of the replacement ad, can resume the original programming at the position following the original advertisement; col. 8, lines 27-42, and Fig. 4B, elements 415, 459, 460, 461, and 425).
While Fish does disclose determining that the first stored media asset is older than the second stored media asset (system can access metadata in order to determine recording timing information for the programs, col. 4, lines 46-51, and based on this information determination of the oldest recording, i.e. recording with the oldest age and/or greater data wherein the other programs are considered newer than the determined oldest; col. 5, lines 20-22, and wherein these determinations can be based on comparison operations; col. 4, lines 28-31, and dates can be compared in relation to other entries; col. 6, lines 61-63), Fish does not explicitly disclose determining that a first stored media asset and a second stored media asset are part of a program series; and
based in part on determining based on date/time/age data, performing operations.
In a related art, Kawasaki does disclose determining that a first stored media asset and a second stored media asset are part of a program series (recorded programs are episodes of a series based on similar recording dates/times and other determined information; page 1, paragraph 17, and page 2, paragraph 26); and
based in part on determining based on date/time/age data, performing operations (system can make determinations based on the dates/times of the episodes in the series and perform certain operations; page 6, paragraphs 126-128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Fish and Kawasaki, by allowing similar series content to be determined, and ages associated with the series content to be utilized, in order to provide an improved system and method for enabling playback of a recorded program episode in a serial based on determinations that there exists one or more episodes in the serial, recorded prior to a specific program (Kawasaki; page 1, paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 6, Fish in view of Kawasaki discloses processing the first stored media asset to identify a plurality of play positions within the first stored media asset corresponding to boundaries between discrete scenes of the first stored media asset (Fish; system can identify play positions including boundaries between scenes/segments of the video; col. 7, line 57 - col. 8, line 5, and Fig. 4A, elements 403, 405, 407, 415, and 425, and Fig. 4B, elements 405, 410, 415, 420, and 425); and
selecting the play position from among the plurality of play positions (Fish; system can select a particular play position having a stale advertisement for replacement, i.e. at least a first one of a plurality; col. 8, lines 18-27, and Fig. 4B, element 410).
Regarding claim 11, Fish in view of Kawasaki discloses the media device is remote from a playback device (Fish; system elements/devices can be remote from each other; col. 6, lines 38-55, and col. 9, lines 31-34, and col. 12, lines 40-45, and col. 15, lines 45-48, and with external, i.e. remote, and connected peripherals/devices; col. 11, lines 15-51, and Kawasaki; external device(s), i.e. remote; page 2, paragraph 40, and page 8, paragraph 171).
Claim 12, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a storage device (Fish; recordings can be stored in a storage device; col. 3, lines 39-41, and col. 4, lines 6-8 and 46-51, and wherein with DVR; col. 8, lines 9-10); and
control circuitry (Fish; computer system with CPUs/processors; col. 9, line 40 - col. 10, line 14).
Claim 16, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 6.
Claim 21, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 11.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fish, US 7,966,218 in view of Kawasaki et al., US 2003/0190150 and further in view of Tang et al., US 2015/0281635.
Regarding claim 3, Fish in view of Kawasaki discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 2, as well as after associating the pointer with the play position and prior to receiving selection of a media asset for playback: performing certain operations (Fish; prior to playback advertisement is inserted at specific location; col. 8, lines 18-27, and Fig. 4C, element 455, and again with use of flags to specific ads; col. 8, lines 27-30, and again including databases; col. 8, lines 35-40, and col. 12, lines 30-37, and col. 15, lines 55-61, and Kawasaki; prior to playback can perform certain operations, including making determinations and at least displaying a selection screen; page 2, paragraph 30, and page 7, paragraph 146), and the first stored media asset includes the advertisement (Fish; play position in the at least first stored content with a stale advertisement; col. 8, lines 18-19, and Fig. 4A, element 407, and Fig. 4B, element 420, and flag at specific play position for the advertisement; col. 8, lines 27-30).
Fish in view of Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose generating for display a listing of stored media assets available for playback, wherein the listing includes a first stored media asset and a second stored media asset; and
causing display, on the first media asset listing, of a visual indication notifying a user about the first stored media asset.
In a related art, Tang does disclose generating for display a listing of stored media assets available for playback, wherein the listing includes a first stored media asset and a second stored media asset (displaying media assets, i.e. first and second, that are recorded; page 13, paragraph 101); and
causing display, on the first media asset listing, of a visual indication notifying a user about the first stored media asset (visual modification can occur as an indicator for/on a specific recorded media asset listed in the guide, i.e. icon/color on the listing, wherein the indicator informs the user about the particular media asset; page 13, paragraph 101).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Fish, Kawasaki, and Tang by allowing indications to be associated with listings of recorded programming, in order to provide an improved system and method which allows a user to easily identity content that has had changes occur to it (Tang; page 1, paragraph 1).
Claim 13, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fish, US 7,966,218 in view of Kawasaki et al., US 2003/0190150 and further in view of Niemeijer et al., US 2010/0303447.
Regarding claim 4, Fish in view of Kawasaki discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 2, as well as associating a pointer to an advertisement with a play position in the media asset (Fish; advertisement is inserted at specific location; col. 8, lines 18-27, and Fig. 4C, element 455, and again with use of flags to specific ads; col. 8, lines 27-30, and again including databases; col. 8, lines 35-40, and col. 12, lines 30-37, and col. 15, lines 55-61), and the second stored media asset (Fish; one of multiple programs which can be stored at specific times; col. 3, lines 39-41, and col. 4, lines 6-8 and 46-51).
Fish in view of Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose refraining from associating an advertisement with a particular media asset.
In a related art, Niemeijer does disclose refraining from associating an advertisement with a particular media asset (system can make determinations about content that is recorded, and can perform insertion operations on certain program first, i.e. refraining from, performing any potential operations on the other recordings, and wherein when no other criteria are met for any remaining content in this analysis cycle, the system will ultimately decline to insert/replace in the older/remaining content; page 4, paragraph 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Fish, Kawasaki, and Niemeijer by allowing commercials to be inserted into specific content, in order to provide an improved system and method the insertion of targeted advertisements or other messages into programming content, e.g., using Digital Video Recording (DVR) technology (Niemeijer; page 1, paragraph 7).
Claim 14, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fish, US 7,966,218 in view of Kawasaki et al., US 2003/0190150 and further in view of Taylor et al., US 2009/0293089.
Regarding claim 5, Fish in view of Kawasaki discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 2, as well as determining that the first stored media asset and the second stored media asset are part of the program series (Kawasaki; system can use information and identify that episodes of content are part of a particular series; page 1, paragraph 17, and page 2, paragraph 26), and the first stored media asset and the second stored media asset (Fish; one of multiple programs which can be stored at specific times; col. 3, lines 39-41, and col. 4, lines 6-8 and 46-51).
Fish in view of Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose determining comprises:
retrieving a first program series identifier of a first media asset;
retrieving a second program series identifier of a second media asset; and
comparing the first program series identifier and the second program series identifier to determine if the first media asset and the second media asset are part of a same program series.
In a related art, Taylor does disclose determining that the first stored media asset and the second stored media asset are part of the program series (determining if first and second program are part of a same series; page 5, paragraph 60) comprises:
retrieving a first program series identifier of a first media asset, retrieving a second program series identifier of a second media asset and comparing the first program series identifier and the second program series identifier to determine if the first media asset and the second media asset are part of a same program series (system compares a retrieved ID associated with a first program to a retrieved ID associated with the second program in order to determine if they are part of the same series; page 5, paragraphs 60-61, and wherein this can also include comparison of title information, i.e. can also be considered ID information, for the programs; page 6, paragraph 62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Fish, Kawasaki, and Taylor by allowing comparisons of program identifiers when determining if content is part of a same series, in order to provide an improved system and method for analyzing program data, such as television program data (Taylor; page 1, paragraph 2).
Claim 15, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fish, US 7,966,218 in view of Kawasaki et al., US 2003/0190150 and further in view of Wing et al., US 2012/0253937 and Feng et al., US 2014/0150016.
Regarding claim 7, Fish in view of Kawasaki discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 2.
Fish in view of Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose retrieving, from a user profile associated with a user, identifications of a plurality of media assets viewed by the user;
determining, based on the user profile, a type of advertisement corresponding to at least one media asset of the plurality of media assets viewed by the user;
retrieving from a database of advertisements a list of advertisements of the determined type; and
selecting the advertisement from the list of advertisements.
In a related art, Wing does disclose retrieving from a database of advertisements a list of advertisements of a determined type (listing of potential ads of specific type meeting a certain criterion are selected/retrieved from advertisement database; page 6, paragraph 107); and
selecting an advertisement from the list of advertisements (particular ad(s) from the potential list are selected; page 6, paragraph 107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Fish, Kawasaki, and Wing, by allowing a plurality of advertisements to be identified and accessed/selected from a database of advertisements, in order to provide an improved system and method for organized storage of advertisement data, thereby providing more efficient access and retrieval of the advertisements.
Fish in view of Kawasaki and Wing does not explicitly disclose retrieving, from a user profile associated with a user, identifications of a plurality of media assets viewed by the user; and
determining, based on the user profile, a type of advertisement corresponding to at least one media asset of the plurality of media assets viewed by the user.
In a related art, Feng does disclose retrieving, from a user profile associated with a user of the media device, identifications of a plurality of media assets viewed by the user (system can utilize profiles/preferences, including media consumption information, i.e. identifications of viewed media assets; page 5, paragraph 42, and page 8, paragraph 70); and
determining, based on the user profile, a type of advertisement corresponding to at least one media asset of the plurality of media assets viewed by the user (system utilizes this information in order to determine type of targeted advertising; page 5, paragraph 42, and page 8, paragraph 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Fish, Kawasaki, Wing, and Feng by allowing advertisements to be selected based on collected/determined information about a user in order to provide an improved system and method for providing targeted advertising on a group level and/or an individual level based on an analysis of data (Feng; page 1, paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 8, Fish in view of Kawasaki discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 2, as well as an advertisement for insertion into the later first media asset (Fish; selected new advertisement can be inserted into the media; col. 8, lines 18-27, and Fig. 4C, element 455, and Kawasaki; system can make determinations based on the dates/times of the episodes in the series and perform certain operations; page 6, paragraphs 126-128).
Fish in view of Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose determining a social network associated with a user;
accessing the social network;
determining, based on social network activity of the user, a type of advertisement corresponding to the social network activity of the user;
retrieving from a database of advertisements a list of advertisement of the determined type; and
selecting an advertisement from the list of advertisements,
wherein the social network activity is a message received by the user from another user of the social network; and
determining, based on social network activity of the user, a type of advertisement corresponding to the social network activity of the user comprises processing the message for content related to a type of advertisement.
In a related art, Wing does disclose retrieving from a database of advertisements a list of advertisements of a determined type (listing of potential ads of specific type meeting a certain criterion are selected/retrieved from advertisement database; page 6, paragraph 107); and
selecting an advertisement from the list of advertisements (particular ad(s) from the potential list are selected; page 6, paragraph 107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Fish, Kawasaki, and Wing, by allowing a plurality of advertisements to be identified and accessed/selected from a database of advertisements, in order to provide an improved system and method for organized storage of advertisement data, thereby providing more efficient access and retrieval of the advertisements.
Fish in view of Kawasaki and Wing does not explicitly disclose determining a social network associated with a user;
accessing the social network;
determining, based on social network activity of the user, a type of advertisement corresponding to the social network activity of the user,
wherein the social network activity is a message received by the user from another user of the social network; and determining, based on social network activity of the user, a type of advertisement corresponding to the social network activity of the user comprises processing the message for content related to a type of advertisement.
In a related art, Feng does disclose determining a social network associated with a user of the media device and accessing the social network (system can utilize information about the user in order to identify and access a social network account/data of the user; page 4, paragraphs 33-34); and
determining, based on social network activity of the user, a type of advertisement corresponding to the social network activity of the user (system can determine type of targeted advertising based on monitored social media activities of the user; page 2, paragraphs 15 and 20, and page 5, paragraph 40, and page 6, paragraph 46),
wherein the social network activity is a message received by the user from another user of the social network, and determining, based on social network activity of the user, a type of advertisement corresponding to the social network activity of the user comprises processing the message for content related to a type of advertisement (system can analyze messaging communicated between users of the social network in order to determine particular type of targeted advertising; page 2, paragraph 15, and page 4, paragraph 36, and page 5, paragraphs 38 and 40, and page 6, paragraph 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Fish, Kawasaki, Wing, and Feng by allowing advertisements to be selected based on collected/determined information about a user in order to provide an improved system and method for providing targeted advertising on a group level and/or an individual level based on an analysis of data (Feng; page 1, paragraph 11).
Claim 17, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 7.
Claim 18, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 8.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fish, US 7,966,218 in view of Kawasaki et al., US 2003/0190150 and further in view of Mihara et al., US 2009/0080698.
Regarding claim 9, Fish in view of Kawasaki discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 2, as well as determining a first age of the first stored media asset and a second age of the second stored media asset (Fish; system can access metadata in order to determine recording timing information for the programs, col. 4, lines 46-51, and based on this information determination of the oldest recording, i.e. recording with the oldest age and/or greater data wherein the other programs are considered newer than the determined oldest; col. 5, lines 20-22, and wherein these determinations can be based on comparison operations; col. 4, lines 28-31, and dates can be compared in relation to other entries; col. 6, lines 61-63, and Kawasaki; system can make determinations based on the dates/times of the episodes in the series and perform certain operations; page 6, paragraphs 126-128), and the first stored media asset and the second stored media asset (Fish; one of multiple programs which can be stored at specific times; col. 3, lines 39-41, and col. 4, lines 6-8 and 46-51).
Fish in view of Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose determining comprises:
converting a first date and time associated with a first media asset to a first value;
converting a second date and time associated with a second media asset to a second value; and
determining that the first value is greater than the second value, wherein a value that is greater represents a later date and time.
In a related art, Mihara does disclose determining comprises converting a first date and time associated with a first media asset to a first value (system can convert a recording date and time for a first content, i.e. C1 with content information C11, to an integer value; page 6, paragraph 103);
converting a second date and time associated with a second media asset to a second value (system can convert a recording date and time for a second content, i.e. C2 with content information C21, to an integer value; page 6, paragraph 103); and
determining that the first value is greater than the second value (making determinations based on the recording dates/values; page 20, paragraph 297, and with specific calculation with the values; page 6, paragraph 103), wherein a value that is greater represents a later date and time (the integer value is a value of elapsed seconds from a reference value of zero, i.e. a larger value indicates a later date/time; page 6, paragraph 103).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Fish, Kawasaki, and Mihara by allowing system operations to perform conversion and determinations based on content dates/times, in order to provide an improved image display apparatus and a computer program product for displaying moving picture contents, where specific content available to a user can be indicated, when they would otherwise not be aware of it (Mihara; page 1, paragraphs 3 and 7-8).
Claim 19, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 9.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fish, US 7,966,218 in view of Kawasaki et al., US 2003/0190150 and Mihara et al., US 2009/0080698 and further in view of Lechner et al., US 2013/0219424.
Regarding claim 10, Fish in view of Kawasaki and Mihara discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 9, as well as the second date associated with the second media asset (Kawasaki; at least another episode/program is stored at a second date and time; Fig. 5, see "MORNING SERIAL DRAMA A" with recording date of "4/6(TUES)" and time of "08:15", and again the time is considered the recording time; page 5, paragraph 93), and wherein associating the pointer with the play position in the first stored media asset is further based on a determination (Fish; system can determine that ads have expired; col. 7, lines 46-56, and col. 8, lines 18-19, and new advertisement is inserted at a specific location; col. 8, lines 18-27, and Fig. 4C, element 455, and wherein for various recordings, i.e. the later first; col. 4, lines 6-14, and flag at specific play position; col. 8, lines 27-30).
Fish in view of Kawasaki and Mihara does not explicitly disclose determining whether a number of days between a current date and a date associated with a media asset exceeds a threshold number of days; and
wherein operations are performed based on determining that the number of days between the current date and the date associated with the media asset exceeds the threshold number of days.
In a related art, Lechner does disclose determining whether a number of days between a current date and a date associated with a media asset exceeds a threshold number of days (based on a date and timestamp of when a program was recorded, system can compare with the current date and time in order to determine age of the program in relation to a threshold number of days; page 5, paragraph 58); and
wherein operations are performed based on determining that the number of days between the current date and the date associated with the media asset exceeds the threshold number of days (if determined that age is not older than threshold number of days, will not replace/insert any ads, and if over threshold number of days, will replace/insert ads; page 5, paragraphs 59-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Fish, Kawasaki, Mihara, and Lechner by allowing advertisements to be replaced/inserted based on analysis with respect to how old a recording is in relation to a threshold, in order to provide an improved system and method for identifying an age, comparing the age to a threshold time period, and obtaining a replacement ad in response to a comparison indicating that the age exceeds the threshold time period (Lechner; see abstract).
Claim 20, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm 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, 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424