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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended. Filing the Terminal Disclaimer overcome the Double Patenting rejection.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/23/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of prior patent numbers: 12284420, 11595725, 11910062 and 10791369 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1, 7-8, 11, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randell (US 2014/0040760) in view of Roberts (US 2010/0332329).
Regarding claim 1, Randell discloses a method comprising:
receiving device data indicating actions 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 the actions of the user with the first set of media content and the genres associated 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).
Randell is not clear about wherein the actions indicate that media content has, by the user, been recorded or placed on a watchlist.
Roberts discloses the above missing limitation; the user interactions with media content is monitored, wherein the interaction may include scheduling a recording of media content or flagging media content as a “favorite”; see at least paragraph 0075.
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 Roberts by having the above limitations so to be able to control presentation of media content in accordance with the interaction profile of the user; see at least the Abstract.
Regarding claim 7, Randell in view of Roberts disclose 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 in view of Roberts disclose 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.
Claims 2-6, 9-10, 12-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Roberts and further in view of Hampson (US 9,703,838).
Regarding claim 2, Randell in view of Roberts disclose the method of claim 1, and disclose the genres and the media content recommendation; as in the rejection of claim 1, but are 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 in view of Roberts 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 Roberts and further 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 Roberts and further 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 Roberts disclose the method of claim 1, but are 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 in view of Roberts 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 Roberts and further 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 Roberts and further 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 Roberts and further 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights