CTNF 19/148,589 CTNF 80911 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1-7, and 9 lack proper legends (or textural labels) for each of functional blocks or reference numbers . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 1 recites the limitation " the production " in line 6 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 2 recites the limitation " the display " in line 6 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ difficulty ” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ difficulty ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ sensitivity ” in claim s 10 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ sensitivity ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 6-7, and 9-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander (20110310305) in view of Mandavilli (2019/0191214) . As for claims 1, 20, and 21, Alexander discloses an information processing device, comprising circuitry configured to: control an audio-visual display device to provide audiovisual content to a user (“a television receiver 118 may automatically adjust presentation settings, based on device information processed by the History Based Decision Facilitator (HBDF) 100”; [0040]); store one or more functions which can be activated by the information processing device to adapt the production of audio-visual content (memory [0046]; one or more functions of the HBDF [0047], [0048]); use a trained model to determine to activate at least one of the one or more functions of the information processing device in accordance with a received user input and a configuration of the information processing device (“Determining values for the one or more parameters may include obtaining device history data records that describe previous invocations of the same or similar function” [0059]); and the circuitry being further configured to: monitor usage of the information processing device by the user, including monitoring usage of the one or more functions of the information processing device (“determine any operations and/or operation parameter values based on device history information” [0038]; “the HBDF 100 may determine that during a particular weekend time period, a television receiver 118 is used to view sports programming at high audio volume” [0040];); determine a level of interest in the one or more functions of the information processing device in accordance with the monitored usage of the information processing device (“At 503, the process determines values for one or more parameters, based on the received device history data. Determining values for the one or more parameters include obtaining device history data records that describe previous invocations of the same or similar function” [0059]); and adapt the configuration of the information processing device, wherein adapting the configuration of the information processing device includes determining a function to activate on the basis of the determined level of interest (“At 503, the process determines values for one or more parameters, based on the received device history data. Determining values for the one or more parameters include obtaining device history data records that describe previous invocations of the same or similar function” [0059]). However, Alexander fails to disclose: Adapting a decision threshold of the trained model to determine a function to activate; In an analogous art, Mandavilli discloses: Adapting a decision threshold of the trained model to determine a function to activate (User powers on smart TV around 7 am and watches channel 3 for greater than an example threshold limit of 20 minutes, the neural network model can train itself to add channel 3 to the favorite channel list [0038]; By using machine learning, smart TVs can be implemented to turn on the user’s desired programming automatically [0044], [0055], [0056]; Machine learning algorithms can be implemented to automatically adjust the volume and brightness when the user is detected [0059]; Using a threshold time duration as a basis for determining a user’s favorite channel, the neural network model can dynamically train itself to learn a user’s favorite channels, and present those channels in a favorite channel list to the user throughout the day [0093];) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alexander’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Mandavilli, for the advantage of personalizing the user equipment, thereby improving user experience. As for claim 2, Alexander discloses wherein the one or more functions include accessibility functions for the display of the audio-visual content to the user (determining to display subtitles or closed captioning; [0040]). As for claim 3, Alexander discloses wherein the accessibility functions include at least one of: a function to adapt the provision of audio-visual content to include subtitles (determining to display subtitles or closed captioning; [0040]) As for claim 4, Mandavilli discloses wherein the trained model includes a machine learning model ([0059], [0055], [0056], [0093]). As for claim 6, Alexander discloses wherein the information processing device according to wherein the usage of the one or more functions includes at least one of: a frequency of use, a context of use, a time of use and/or a difficulty of use by the user (time period [0040]; frequently recorded but infrequently viewed [0041]). As for claim 7, Alexander and Mandavilli fail to disclose wherein the difficulty includes a number of received user inputs prior to execution of the function and/or a time duration from an initial user input prior to execution of the function to the execution of the function. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known wherein the difficulty includes a number of received user inputs prior to execution of the function and/or a time duration from an initial user input prior to execution of the function to the execution of the function. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Alexander and Mandavilli’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by the Examiner’s statement of Official Notice, for the advantage of personalizing the configuration of the device for the user. As for claim 9, Mandavilli discloses wherein adapting the decision threshold of the circuitry control unit includes re-training the trained model using specific training data acquired from the user (“user’s interests change over time” [0056]). As for claim 10, Alexander and Mandavilli fail to disclose wherein adapting the decision threshold includes reducing the sensitivity to activating a function of the one or more functions on the basis of the determined level of interest. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known wherein adapting the decision threshold includes reducing the sensitivity to activating a function of the one or more functions on the basis of the determined level of interest. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Alexander and Mandavilli’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by the Examiner’s statement of Official Notice, for the advantage of personalizing the configuration of the device for the user. As for claim 11, Alexander and Mandavilli fail to disclose information processing device according to wherein reducing the sensitivity includes increasing a number of triggers associated with a function of the one or more functions. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known wherein reducing the sensitivity includes increasing a number of triggers associated with a function of the one or more functions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Alexander and Mandavilli’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by the Examiner’s statement of Official Notice, for the advantage of personalizing and simplifying the configuration of the device. As for claim 12, Mandavalli discloses wherein the circuitry processing unit is further configured to provide a level of feedback to the user when executing a function in accordance with the decision threshold for execution of that function of the one or more functions ([0059], [0093], [0055], [0056]). As for claim 13, Alexander discloses wherein the circuitry processing unit is configured to maintain a result of activation of a function, once activated, until occurrence of a predetermined event (keep the volume level, subtitles; [0014], [0040], [0044]). As for claim 14, Alexander discloses wherein the information processing device is configured to run one or more applications of the information processing device for output of audio video content ([0048], [0012], [0014], [0018]). As for claim 15, Alexander discloses wherein the one or more applications of the information processing device are stored in memory of the information processing device the storage unit ([0054]). As for claim 16, Alexander discloses wherein the audio video content to be provided to the user is output by one of the one or more applications of the information processing device ([0012], [0014], [0018]). PNG media_image1.png 24 849 media_image1.png Greyscale As for claim 17, Alexander discloses wherein monitoring usage of the information processing device includes monitoring usage of the one or more applications of the information processing device ([0047]: health tracker; [0048], [0050]). As for claim 18, Alexander discloses wherein adapting the configuration of the information processing device includes adapting a configuration of the one or more applications of the information processing device ([0060]). As for claim 19, Alexander discloses wherein the information processing device is configured to store the configuration of the one or more applications of the information processing device in a server in association with user credentials; and wherein the information processing device is configured to download a configuration of the one or more applications of the information processing device from the server in accordance with the credentials of the user ([0052]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander and Mandavilli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung (2010/0046020) . As for claim 8, Alexander and Mandavilli fail to disclose wherein adapting the configuration further includes adapting a menu of functions displayed to the user, wherein the circuitry control unit is configured to determine a function to activate from the menu of functions displayed to the user. In an analogous art, Chung discloses wherein adapting the configuration further includes adapting a menu of functions displayed to the user, wherein the circuitry control unit is configured to determine a function to activate from the menu of functions displayed to the user ([0030], [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alexander and Mandavilli’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Chung, for the advantage of personalizing the user device, thereby improving user experience. Relevant Prior Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure : Zhu (2018/0324476) - Action log is used to infer interests or preferences of a user, augmenting the interests included in the user’s profile and allowing a more complete understanding of user preferences. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8567. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-3:00 PM. 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. SUMAIYA A. CHOWDHURY Examiner Art Unit 2421 /SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421 Application/Control Number: 19/148,589 Page 2 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 19/148,589 Page 3 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 19/148,589 Page 4 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 19/148,589 Page 5 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 19/148,589 Page 6 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 19/148,589 Page 7 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 19/148,589 Page 8 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 19/148,589 Page 9 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 19/148,589 Page 10 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 19/148,589 Page 11 Art Unit: 2421
Prosecution Insights