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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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.
Claims 1 and 9 possess clauses that are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The “obtaining” clause stating, “obtaining a recommended channel list including at least one of a first preferred channel corresponding to a first group including use characteristics by the time information of a first user of the plurality of users among the M groups by the time information or a second preferred channel corresponding to a second group including overall use characteristics of the first user among the N groups for the overall use characteristics”, is an exceedingly long clause that lack any punctuation and suffers from poor grammar. It is indefinite as to what claim limitation includes use characteristics, nor is it definite as to what precisely is done, performed, or meant by the repeatedly claimed limitation of “by the time information”. In the event that Applicant is including the phrase “by the time information” in referring to antecedent limitations, the Examiner recommends rephrasing and using punctuation to make this clear. The claim limitations of “use characteristics by the time information” and “M groups by the time information” are made unclear and cause the clauses/sentences to be grammatically incorrect by appending “use characteristics” and “M groups”, respectively, with “by the time information”. This is lack of clarity and incorrect grammar is also seen in the recitation of “by the time information” in claims 4-5 and 12-13.
It is indefinite as to whether “a first group including use characteristics by the time information” is referring to possible antecedent claim limitations that precede it in claims 1 and 9 (e.g., “obtaining…use characteristic by the time information” and “grouping the use characteristics by the time information”), or whether it is intended to be a new limitation.
It is indefinite as to whether “a second group including overall use characteristics” is referring to possible antecedent claim limitations that precede it in claims 1 and 9 (e.g., “obtaining…and overall use characteristics” and “grouping the overall use characteristics”), or whether it is intended to be a new limitation. Furthermore, it is indefinite as to whether the recitation of the claim limitation “…among the N groups for the overall use characteristics.” in claims 1 and 9 are referring to either of the possible indefinite interpretations described above.
Referring to claims 2-3 and 10-11, it is indefinite as to whether the recitation of claim limitation “use history information” is referring to the possible antecedent recitation of this limitation in claims 1 and 9, respectively, or whether this is intended to be a new limitation.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shekhar et al (hereinafter Shekhar) US 20170127132.
Referring to claim 1, Shekhar discloses a method of providing a user-personalized recommended channel list by a server, the method comprising:
obtaining use history information including time information of a plurality of display devices (see Paragraphs 0020-0022, 0028-0029, 0031, 0042-0048 and TABLES I and II for disclosing obtaining use history information including time information of a plurality of display devices/user computing devices capable of playing back video content);
obtaining, based on the use history information, use characteristics by the time information and overall use characteristics for each of a plurality of users corresponding to the plurality of display devices (see Paragraphs 0013-0014, 0020-0022, and 0042-0048 and Table II for disclosing obtaining, based on the use history information, use characteristics by the time information (interpreted as channel browsing behavior) and overall use characteristics (interpreted as the channel watching behavior) for each of a plurality of users corresponding to the user computing devices);
grouping the use characteristics by the time information for the plurality of users into M groups by the time information by clustering the use characteristics by the time information for the plurality of users (see Paragraphs 0013-0014 and 0033 for disclosing grouping the browsing behavior for the plurality of users into M (interpreted as any number of) groups by clustering the users sharing particular browsing behaviors into respective segments/groups);
grouping the overall use characteristics for the plurality of users into N groups by clustering the overall use characteristics for the plurality of users (see Paragraphs 0013-0014 and 0038-0039 for disclosing grouping the watching behavior for the plurality of users into N (interpreted as any number of) groups by clustering the users sharing particular watching behaviors into respective segments/groups);
obtaining a recommended channel list including at least one of a first preferred channel corresponding to a first group including use characteristics by the time information of a first user of the plurality of users among the M groups by the time information or a second preferred channel corresponding to a second group including overall use characteristics of the first user among the N groups for the overall use characteristics (see Paragraphs 0004, 0013-0016, and published claims 1 and 17 for disclosing recommending one or more channels to the different segments/groups of users corresponding to the channels discovered to have been scored of the highest preference to each group based on the watching behavior and the browsing behavior of the segments/groups of users); and
providing the recommended channel list to a first display device corresponding to the first user among the plurality of display devices (see Paragraphs 0004, 0013-0017, 0030, 0040, 0071-0074, and published claim 1 and 17).
Referring to claim 2, Shekhar discloses in case that the first user has use history information corresponding to a specific time slot (see Paragraph 0013 for disclosing a specific time slot (e.g., the hour of the day when the user watches a particular A/V content)), the recommended channel list includes the first preferred channel corresponding to the first group including the first user among the M groups for the time information including the specific time slot (as seen in the rejection of claim 1).
Referring to claim 3, Shekhar discloses in case that the first user has no use history information corresponding to a specific time slot (see paragraph 0015 for disclosing the channel watching behavior has no time slot information), the recommended channel list includes the second preferred channel corresponding to the second group including the first user among the N groups for the overall use characteristics (as seen in the rejection of claim 1).
Referring to claim 4, Shekhar discloses the use history information includes at least one of channel viewing history information by the time information, content viewing history information by the time information, application use history information by the time information, or TV use history information by the time information of the plurality of users (see Paragraphs 0028-0029 and 0042-0048 and TABLES I and II for disclosing the various pieces of information that is collect regarding the use history information of each user).
Referring to claim 5, Shekhar discloses the use characteristics by the time information and the overall use characteristics include a statistical value for viewing history or a statistical value for use history (see Paragraphs 0014-0016, 0039, 0047, 0061, and TABLE II for disclosing statistical values related to viewing or use history).
Referring to claim 6, Shekhar discloses storing the M groups by the time information and the N groups for the overall use characteristics (see Paragraphs 0017 and 0033); and
storing the preferred channels for the M groups and the N groups (see paragraph 0074).
Referring to claim 7, Shekhar discloses the preferred channels for groups include channels related to contents viewed by the plurality of users included in the M groups and the N groups (as seen in the rejection of claim 1).
Claim 9 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1, further noting Shekhar discloses a server for providing a user-personalized recommended channel list, the server comprising a transceiver, a memory storing one or more instructions, and at least one processor configured to executed the one or more instructions (see Paragraphs 0019 and 0077-0079) to perform the method as seen in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
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 8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shekhar et al (hereinafter Shekhar) US 20170127132 in view of Thompson et al (hereinafter Thompson) US 10104438.
Referring to claim 8, Shekhar discloses obtaining use history information based on preset intervals (see Paragraphs 0038, 0043, and 0049) and obtaining the recommended channel list based on the use history information as seen in the rejection of claim 1.
Shekhar is unclear as to obtaining updated use history information.
Thompson discloses obtaining updated use history information (see Abstract for disclosing changes in a user’s video viewing activity can be dynamically updated). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the updated use history information of Thompson with the system of Shekhar in order to take advantage of the updating of factors that are utilized to determine the type of content to automatically recommend content items that are relevant to the user (see Thompson, Abstract).
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8, further noting Shekhar discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having recorded thereon a program (see Paragraphs 0019 and 0077-0079) to perform, on a computer, the method as seen in the rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS T CORBO whose telephone number is (571)270-5675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS T CORBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
07/24/2026
Prosecution Insights