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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 claim depends from itself.
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)(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 1-3, 11-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lynn et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0282819).
Referring to claim 1, Lynn discloses receiving, at a server device having a hardware processor, a media application for presenting video content, wherein the media application is associated with a content partner and wherein the video content is associated with a plurality of media actions that are presented in one or more unified user interfaces of a unified television application executing on a network-connected television device (see Paragraph 0013, 0020, 0021 and 0053).
Lynn also discloses testing, at the server device, the media application using a plurality of validators, wherein the plurality of validators each test a portion of the plurality of media actions presented on the one or more unified user interfaces of the unified television application, wherein the plurality of validators includes a first validator that determines whether a deeplink associated with the video content that is available for presentation using the network-connected television application is operating correctly (see Paragraph 0066 for maintenance logic used to minimize the need to re-index content and verify the continued existence and availability of previously indexed content (cleaning up dead links)), and wherein the deeplink, upon selection, causes the media application to launch and cause the media application to retrieve and play back a corresponding video content item (see Paragraph 0020).
Lynn also discloses determining, using the first validator, a plurality of deeplinks that are associated with the video content that is available for presentation using the media application, wherein each of the plurality of deeplinks is presented on one or more unified user interfaces (see Paragraph 0017 for an Internet Video Guide) of the unified television application executing on the network-connected television device (see Paragraphs 0017, 0064 and 0066).
Lynn also discloses determining, using the first validator, whether selection of each of the plurality of deeplinks causes the media application to launch and cause the media application to retrieve and play back the corresponding video content item (see Paragraph 0095).
Lynn also discloses that in response to determining that a subset of the plurality of deeplinks are operating incorrectly by not launching the media application and not causing the media application to retrieve and playback the corresponding video content item (see Paragraphs 0066 and 0095), transmitting, at the server device, a notification to the content partner that the subset of the plurality of deeplinks is operating incorrectly while causing the unified television application to suppress recommendations that include a deeplink from the subset of the plurality of deeplinks that are operating incorrectly (see Paragraphs 0066 and 0095-0096 for cleaning up dead links using the index maintenance process 440, which in Figure 6 communicates between a server device and a content partner that stores and manages the content).
Referring to claim 2, Lynn discloses that the notification to the content partner further includes an indication of remaining deeplinks that are operating correctly (see Paragraph 0095).
Referring to claim 3, Lynn discloses that the unified television application presents the recommendations that include one of the remaining deeplinks that are operating correctly (see Paragraph 0095 and step 512 in Figure 5).
Referring to claims 11-13, see the rejection of claims 1-3, respectively.
Referring to claim 21, see the rejection of 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.
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 4-10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynn et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0282819) in view of O’Connor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0289262).
Referring to claim 4, Lynn discloses all of the limitations in claim 1, as well as displaying video for selection in a video guide (see step 512 in Figure 5) and a video harvesting mechanism used to validate the video URLs to display to the viewer (see the bottom of Paragraph 0066), but fails to teach presenting one or more video tiles in a row of video tiles within the unified television application for a user having a user account that is authenticated with the unified television application to consume the corresponding video content at a later time.
O’Connor discloses presenting one or more video tiles in a row of video tiles within the unified television application for a user having a user account that is authenticated with the unified television application to consume the corresponding video content at a later time (see Paragraphs 0065, 0068, 0069 and 0123).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the IVG creation and display system, as taught by Lynn, using the electronic program guide, as taught by O’Conner, for the purpose of providing a unified user interface for the purposes of promoting a media content item, product or event (see Paragraph 0006 of O’Connor).
Claim 5 corresponds to claim 4, wherein O’Connor discloses that the one or more video tiles in the row of video tiles corresponding to a video content item that is related to content that the user has consumed (see Paragraph 0065).
Claim 6 corresponds to claim 5, wherein O’Connor discloses determining whether selection of a video tile in the row of video tiles causes the media application to launch and causes the media application to retrieve and play back the video content item corresponding to the video tile (see Paragraph 0123).
Claim 7 corresponds to claim 6, wherein Lynn and O’Conner disclose all of the limitations of claim 6, but fail to teach determining that the content that the user has consumed is episodic content and determining that the video content item is a subsequent episode of the content that the user has consumed.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that a program guide creation system can determine that the content that the user has consumed is episodic content and determine that the video content item is a subsequent episode of the content that the user has consumed.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the IVG creation and display system, as taught by Lynn, using the electronic program guide, as taught by O’Conner, for the purpose of providing a unified user interface for the purposes of promoting a media content item, product or event (see Paragraph 0006 of O’Connor).
Claim 8 corresponds to claim 4, wherein O’Connor discloses that the one or more video tiles in the row of video tiles corresponds to video content items that the user has stopped viewing prior to an end time of the video content item (see Paragraph 0093). Further note Paragraph 0087 of Lynn.
Claim 9 corresponds to claim 9 (see 112b rejection above), wherein O’Connor discloses determining whether selection of a video tile in the row of video tiles causes the media application to launch and cause the media application to retrieve and play back the video content item corresponding to the video tile from a playback position that corresponds to when the user stopped viewing the video content item (see Paragraph 0093).
Referring to claim 10, Lynn discloses a third validator that determines whether the media application transmits an indication of media playback to the unified television application (see Paragraph 0066).
Referring to claims 14-20, see the rejection of claims 4-10, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON P SALCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7301. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am-10:00pm M-F (Flex Schedule).
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.
/Jason Salce/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Jason P Salce
Senior Examiner
Art Unit 2421
July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights