DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the above identified application filed 03/26/2025. The application contains claims 1-20, all examined and rejected.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC 101. Claim 1 refers to “receiver module,” “analyzer module,” and “profile updation module” all of which fails to specifically disclose to be a part of a physical device and to one of ordinary skill can be implemented as software routines. See applicant’s specification paragraph 0041 shows implementations as software only. Accordingly, the claims lack the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 USC 101. They are clearly not a series of steps or acts to be a process nor are they a combination of chemical compounds to be a composition of matter. Therefore, renders the system at most software per se, failing to fall within a statutory category. Claim 2-10 are rejected for the same reasons identified above as they are dependent on rejected base claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-7, 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman et al. (US 20210168451 A1) in view of Antos et al. (US 20100306171 A1).
As per claim 1, Venkataraman et al. (US 20210168451 A1) discloses:
a system for creating recommendation restoration points in a media account, the system comprises:
a receiver module to: receive content consumption data pertaining to media contents played on one or more media devices associated with the media account, at least by (paragraph [0038] describes retrieving user viewing profile (e.g. content consumption data) related to a parent’s user account)
fetch a media recommendation profile and one or more sub-profiles associated with the media account, at least by (paragraph [0060, 0077] describes receiving user preferences as media recommendation profile that includes user viewing profile, program favorites, programming preferences, which are sub-profiles associated with the user account)
an analyzer module to analyze the received content consumption data to identify one or more parameters associated with the media contents played on the one or more media devices, at least by (paragraph [0098] which describes determining rules (e.g identify one or more parameters) based on one or more trends related to the user’s viewing profile)
an anomaly detector to: identify a deviation of content consumption behavior with respect to historical content consumption behaviors of the one or more sub-profiles based at least on the identified one or more parameters, at least by (paragraph [0098] describes determination of whether the access to the media content is consistent or likelihood that the user selected the media asset, describes the deviation of content consumption behavior, described by the rules related to the viewing profile and preferences (e.g. sub-profiles), where the rules and metadata tags extracted from the viewing profile and preferences are the identified one or more parameters)
detect anomaly in the content consumption behavior if the identified deviation is more than a pre-defined threshold, at least by (paragraph [0098-0100] describe detecting an anomaly by determining whether the media asset is consistent with the first user viewing profile based on applying the first set of rules extracted from viewing profile and preferences to the media asset, regarding detecting an anomaly, claim 52 describes “detecting that metadata of the media asset does not match metadata of the first viewing profile”, where the pre-defined threshold is an exact match.)
and a profile updation module to update the media recommendation profile by at least by (paragraph [0041] “user may choose to proceed and update the user's viewing profile via option 206, proceed but not update the user's viewing profile via option 208, or change the user's viewing profile via option 210)
But Venkataraman fails to describe:
a restoration point creator to create a restoration point based on the detection of the anomaly to facilitate a user to select the restoration point… removing the content consumption data collected after the restoration point
However, Antos teaches the above limitations at least by (paragraph [0088] describes creating versions of the data when it is determined that a version is different enough based on a threshold from the previous versions, as a restoration point creator to create a restoration point, and Fig. 7, paragraph [0096-0098] describes a displayed timeline of each version that can be selected by a user to restore back to the selected version, which would remove any data that was updated after the selected version (e.g. removing the content consumption data collected after the restoration point)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Venkataraman with Antos to, “make browsing and selecting the desired versions easier and simpler,” (Antos, paragraph [0101]).
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Venkataraman fails to disclose:
wherein the restoration point is presented over a timeline graph along with time reference to the user.
However, Antos teaches the above limitations at least by (Fig. 7, paragraph [0096-0098] describes a displayed timeline of each version that can be selected by a user to restore back to the selected version)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Venkataraman with Antos to, “make browsing and selecting the desired versions easier and simpler,” (Antos, paragraph [0101]).
As per claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and Venkataraman disclose:
wherein the media account corresponds to a unique profile, associated with a user or a user device, maintained by an Over The Top (OTT) provider, a linear content provider, a media aggregator, or a content recommendation system, at least by (paragraph [0036,0041] describes a interactive media guidance application associated with user account related to user/device. Paragraph [0050] further describes the Interactive media guidance applications being maintained by Over The Top (OTT) provider, a linear content provider, a media aggregator, or a content recommendation system).
As per claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and Venkataraman disclose:
wherein each of the one or more sub-profiles correspond to a viewing pattern of a user associated with the media account, at least by (paragraph [0060, 0077] describes receiving user preferences as media recommendation profile that includes user viewing profile, program favorites, programming preferences, which are sub-profiles associated with the user account).
As per claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and Venkataraman disclose:
further comprises a sub-profile creator to form the one or more sub- profiles based on the identified one or more parameters associated with the media contents played on the one or more media devices, at least by (paragraph [0060,0077] “user may also set various settings to maintain consistent media guidance application settings… Settings include those described herein, as well as channel and program favorites, programming preferences that the guidance application utilizes to make programming recommendations” these user selected settings that defines program favorites, programming preferences, describes a sub-profile creator).
As per claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated and Venkataraman disclose:
wherein the one or more parameters include a genre of content, time of content consumption, length of content consumption, rating associated with media content, associated actors, associated directors, associated scriptwriter, language of media content, and plot information associated with media content, at least by (paragraph [0053] “the guidance data may include program information, guidance application settings, user preferences, user profile information, media listings, media-related information (e.g., broadcast times, broadcast channels, titles, descriptions, ratings information (e.g., parental control ratings, critic's ratings, etc.), genre or category information, actor information, logo data for broadcasters' or providers' logos, etc.), media format (e.g., standard definition, high definition, 3D, etc.), on-demand information, blogs, websites, and any other type of guidance data that is helpful for a user” paragraph [0098] “ the one more metadata tags includes one or more of a genre, a time slot, a title, a channel, a media source, a language, a month, a day of week, a parental rating, and a popularity rating.”).
As per claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and Venkataraman disclose:
wherein if the identified deviation is less than the pre-defined threshold then the deviation is considered as one of the one or more sub-profiles, at least by (paragraph [0098-0100] describe detecting an anomaly by determining whether the media asset is consistent with the first user viewing profile based on applying the first set of rules extracted from viewing profile and preferences to the media asset, regarding detecting an anomaly, claim 52 describes “detecting that metadata of the media asset does not match metadata of the first viewing profile”, which means if metadata of the media asset does match metadata of the first viewing profile then the media is consistent with the first user viewing profile, a match would result in 0 deviation which would be less than any pre-defined threshold)
Claims 11-17 recite equivalent claim limitations as claims 1-7 above, except that they set forth the claimed invention as a method, as such they are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman and Antos in view of Lin et al. (US 20130080631 A1).
As per claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated and Venkataraman and Antos fails to disclose:
wherein if the anomaly occurs for less than a pre-defined time period then the anomaly is discarded.
However, Lin teaches the above limitations at least by (paragraph [0039] “evaluate whether this new behavior is an acceptable behavior and part of a new normal behavior. If so, then a new threshold value, whether high or low, is calculated for the profile of this user. If the alert is a first alert for the user, the designated personnel may choose not to update the threshold values and wait for additional occurrences… re-calculate the threshold values after a predefined number of alerts are received”, which describes not updating thresholds since the new behavior only created an alert once (“alert is a first alert for the user”) less than “a predefined number of alerts”, which means the anomaly is discarded until the number of alerts association with the anomaly is more that the “a predefined number of alerts”)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Venkataraman and Antos with Lin to adaptively build a baseline behavior model in real-time to detect anomalous behavior and prevent potential information security threats from going unnoticed and propagating to a later stage, (Lin, paragraph [0021]).
As per claim 9, claim 1 is incorporated and Venkataraman and Antos fails to disclose:
wherein if the anomaly occurs regularly for more than a pre-defined number of times then the anomaly is considered as a new sub-profile and stored in the database.
However, Lin teaches the above limitations at least by (paragraph [0039] “evaluate whether this new behavior is an acceptable behavior (e.g. a new sub-profile) and part of a new normal behavior. If so, then a new threshold value, whether high or low, is calculated for the profile of this user…re-calculate the threshold values after a predefined number of alerts are received (e.g. anomaly occurs regularly for more than a pre-defined number of times)”
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Venkataraman and Antos with Lin to adaptively build a baseline behavior model in real-time to detect anomalous behavior and prevent potential information security threats from going unnoticed and propagating to a later stage, (Lin, paragraph [0021]).
As per claim 10, claim 1 is incorporated and Venkataraman and Antos fails to disclose:
wherein the pre-defined threshold is determined based on at least one of: calculated standard deviation of media recommendation profile, one of the one or more sub-profiles, and manual calibration by one or more users associated with the media account
However, Lin at least by (paragraph [0032] which describes a max and min threshold corresponding behavior counters of its group profile, and issuance of the alert event means that a particular member's behavior has deviated from the group profile that member belongs to” and such the max and min is “calculated standard deviation of media recommendation profile” paragraph [0029] “personnel can either respond to the warning (alert) event by adjusting or redefining the respective condition” (e.g. manual calibration by one or more users)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Venkataraman and Antos with Lin to adaptively build a baseline behavior model in real-time to detect anomalous behavior and prevent potential information security threats from going unnoticed and propagating to a later stage, (Lin, paragraph [0021]).
Claims 18-20 recite equivalent claim limitations as claims 8-10 above, except that they set forth the claimed invention as a method, as such they are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BHATTACHARYA et al. (US 20230388596 A1): Abstract, paragraph [0026, 0030-0031].
Linden et al. (US 20130198030 A1): paragraph [0170].
Chan et al. (US 20080243637 A1) : paragraph [0067].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3157. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 3:30 pm PT.
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, Neveen Abel-Jail can be reached at 571-270-0474. 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.
/DENNIS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 12/19/2025
Prosecution Insights