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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yelton (WO 2019/108257 A1) in view of Lockett et al. (US 8,689,265 B2, hereinafter refers Lockett).
Regarding claim 1, Yelton discloses a method comprising:
using a first device, detecting user input (para. 5-6, para. 12, to detect the keywords from user’s conversation);
analyzing the user input for one or more keywords or one or more phrases that indicate uncertainty about choosing a media asset or a desire to receive a media asset recommendation (para. 24-26, para. 115, keywords are detected such as football or Jon Snow to recommend the related videos);
transmitting the one or more keywords or the one or more phrases that indicate the uncertainty about choosing the media asset or the desire to receive the media asset recommendation based at least in part on the detected user input on the first device to a second device to cause the second device to perform a media asset recommendation search (Fig. 1, para. 25, el. 102 to detect the audios from user’s conversation, and to process at the media application at el. 104 to recommend the media content based on the detected keywords in the conversation);
Yelton does not disclose at a later time: detecting access to the second device; and generating for output one or more results of the media asset recommendation search;
Lockett teaches at a later time: detecting access to the second device; and generating for output one or more results of the media asset recommendation search (Fig. 36, col. 25, lines 23-60, the view preferences are sent to the user once a user to check in a hotel and use hotel’s TV device);
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the arts before the invention to modify Yelton to include Lockett in order to send increase viewer’s viewing experience which allow user to watch the recommended videos to him or her at any place.
Regarding claim 2, Yelton in view of Lockett discloses wherein the analyzing the user input for the one or more keywords or the one or more phrases that indicate the uncertainty about choosing the media asset or the desire to receive the media asset recommendation comprises: processing the detected user input using a catchphrase data structure and additional information including user profile information, viewing history, and preferences (Yelton, Fig. 10, el. 1006, el. 1008).
Regarding claim 3, Yelton in view of Lockett discloses wherein the processing is performed entirely on a single local device (Yelton, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, el. 104).
Regarding claim 4, Yelton in view of Lockett discloses wherein the processing is performed primarily at one or more local or remote servers (Yelton, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, el. 104).
Regarding claim 5, Yelton in view of Lockett discloses wherein the catchphrase data structure tracks catchphrase usage including time (Yelton, para. 108), date (para. 109), frequency (para. 69), location (para. 107, temporal location), and other contextual information (Yelton, para. 107-109, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Yelton in view of Lockett discloses wherein the catchphrase data structure includes catchphrase associations (Yelton, para. 24-26, para. 115, keywords are detected such as football or Jon Snow to be associated with the recommendation programs).
Regarding claim 7, Yelton in view of Lockett discloses wherein the additional information includes a content of the detected user input (Yelton, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Yelton in view of Lockett discloses wherein the first device is a smart television (Yelton, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Yelton in view of Lockett discloses wherein the first is device different from the second device (Lockett, Fig. 36, col. 25, lines 23-60, the view preferences are sent to the user once a user to check in a hotel and use hotel’s TV device).
Regarding claim 10, Yelton in view of Lockett discloses wherein the user input is detected at a first time, the media asset recommendation search occurs a second time different than the first time (Yelton, Fig. 9, the media application to detect a keyword at the first time in the conversation, and detecting another keyword in the conversation, the recommendation content for first time and second time would be different), and the later time is later than the first time and the second time (Lockett, Fig. 36, col. 25, lines 23-60, at later time, the user to check in the hotel to watch his or her viewing preference, the later time is later than the first time and second time).
Regarding claim 11, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, the instant claim is met by the rejection of claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAI Y CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5679. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM -4:30 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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/CAI Y CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
