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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,284,420.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,595,725.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obvious over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,910,062 in view of Randell (US 2014/0040760).
Patent No. 11,910,062 discloses most of the claim except receiving device data indicating interactions of a user with a first set of media content, identifying genres associated with the first set of media content and selecting an icon.
Randell discloses receiving device data indicating interactions of a user with a first set of media content (user interaction is monitored and stored at a server; see at least paragraph 0034, identifying genres associated with the first set of media content (user data indicates content in specific category or interested genres; see at least paragraphs 0045 and 0060) and selecting an icon (see at least Fig. 5 and paragraph 0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Patent No. 11,910,062 by the teachings of Randell by having the above limitations so to be able to provide an entertainment content personalization system; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obvious over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,791,369 in view of Randell (US 2014/0040760).
Patent No. 10,791,369 discloses most of the claim except receiving device data indicating interactions of a user with a first set of media content, identifying genres associated with the first set of media content and selecting an icon.
Randell discloses receiving device data indicating interactions of a user with a first set of media content (user interaction is monitored and stored at a server; see at least paragraph 0034, identifying genres associated with the first set of media content (user data indicates content in specific category or interested genres; see at least paragraphs 0045 and 0060) and selecting an icon (see at least Fig. 5 and paragraph 0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Patent No. 10,791,369 by the teachings of Randell by having the above limitations so to be able to provide an entertainment content personalization system; see at least the Abstract.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least one examined application claim is not patentable distinct from the reference claims(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
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, 7-8, 11, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Randell (US 2014/0040760).
Regarding claim 1, Randell discloses a method comprising:
receiving device data indicating interactions of a user with a first set of media content (user interaction is monitored and stored at a server; see at least paragraph 0034);
identifying genres associated with the first set of media content (user data indicates content in specific category or interested genres; see at least paragraphs 0045 and 0060);
generating, based on the received data indicating interactions of the user with the first set of media content, media content recommendations including a second set of media content corresponding to the genres (generating recommended\personalized content based on the user data wherein the user data indicate content in specific category or interested genres; see at least paragraphs 0045 and 0060);
providing the media content genre recommendations to a device, by the device displaying icons representing the second set of media content by genres calculated as relevant (user interface displays the recommended\personalized content; see at least Fig. 3 and paragraphs 0046 and 0049); and
displaying at least one of the second set of media content when a corresponding icon is selected (displaying the personalized content; see at least Fig. 5 and paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 7, Randell discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the media content recommendations comprise one or more videos (see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Randell discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the icons representing the second set of media content are displayed in a grid format (see at least Figs. 3-4).
Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
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 2-6, 9-10, 12-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randell in view of Hampson (US 9,703,838).
Regarding claim 2, Randell discloses the method of claim 1, and discloses the genres and the media content recommendation; as in the rejection of claim 1, but is not clear about generating a plurality of personas, each persona of the plurality of personas representing a character having a particular interest; and determining corresponding content for each persona, the corresponding media content for each persona comprising media content that shares a common theme corresponding to the particular interest of each persona of the plurality of personas, wherein the media content recommendations are based on the corresponding media content for each persona.
Hampson discloses the above missing limitation; recommendations are received from sending user personas and playlist of recommendations are generated based upon specified criteria and sending the recommendations to friends having similar interests; see at least col. 4, lines 16-53 and col. 12, lines 9-35.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Randell by the teachings of Hampson by having the above limitations so to be able to provide multi sender and source recommendation aggregation and prompting system; see at least the Abstract.
Regarding claim 3, Randell in view of Hampson disclose the method of claim 2, wherein determining the corresponding media content comprises determining most popular media content for a genre corresponding to the particular persona of the plurality of personas (the combination of Randell; see at least paragraphs 0013, 0033 and 0043 and the personas of Hampson; see at least the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Randell in view of Hampson disclose the method of claim 2, wherein determining the corresponding media content comprises determining most highly rated media content for a genre corresponding to the particular persona of the plurality of personas (the combination of Randell; see at least paragraphs 0013, 0033 and 0043 and the personas of Hampson; see at least the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, Randell in view of Hampson disclose the method of claim 1, but is not clear about in response to receiving a selection of an icon representing a selected persona of a plurality of persona, causing display of icons representing media content recommendations generated for the selected persona.
Hampson discloses the above missing limitation; recommendation are generated and displayed when a user selects a persona’s icon; see at least Fig. 4 and col. 11, line 47-53 and col. 14, lines 1-5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Randell by the teachings of Hampson by having the above limitations so to be able to provide multi sender and source recommendation aggregation and prompting system; see at least the Abstract.
Regarding claim 6, Randell in view of Hampson disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the at least some personas are generated based on the device data corresponding to the user (the combination of Randell’s device data; see at least the rejection of claim 2 and the personas of Hampson; see at least the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 9, Randell in view of Hampson disclose the method of claim 2, wherein generating the plurality of personas comprises generating personas that provide media content recommendations for a general audience (personas of Hampson; see at least the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 10, Randell in view of Hampson disclose the method of claim 2, wherein generating the plurality of personas comprises generating customized personas based on the device data (the combination of Randell’s device data; see at least the rejection of claim 2 and the personas of Hampson; see at least the rejection of claim 2).
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/YASSIN ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426