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
Per Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment filed 5/2/2025
Claims 1-51 have been canceled.
Claims 52-71 have been newly added.
Claims 52-71 are pending.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
I. 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.
II. CLAIMS 52-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ORR et al (WO 2017/044260) in view of HOWARD (US 2018/0351888).
Per claim 52, ORR et al teach a computer-implemented method comprising:
determining that a computing device is outputting media content, wherein the media content is being consumed by a user in relation to a profile associated with the computing device (paras 0136, 0185, 0188, page 318 para 0197—determining media content available for display on a particular user device with an associated user profile);
determining an attribute of the media content (paras 0196-205, 0246—determining parameters of media content);
receiving a notification at the computing device (pages 317-318 paras 0196-199—receiving a notification at a computing device);
determining a source from which the notification originated (page 316 para 0195-page 318 para 0198—determining notifications from the system source);
determining, based at least in part on the attribute of the media content and the source of the notification, not to output the notification at the computing device at a current time (paras 0185—suggestion notifications can be displayed at a particular time); and
at a later time, determining to output the notification (para 0196—notifications can be displayed momentarily or for a certain amount of time before disappearing).
ORR et al teach notifications, as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach “refraining from outputting the notification at the computing device at the current time”. However, HOWARD selects the notifications to present to the user based on the priority score, such that notification is disabled and not displayed if the priority score is below the threshold (paras 0101, 0155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of ORR et al with HOWARD for the purpose of refraining for outputting the notification, which is well-known in the art for not displaying the notification based on a low priority score deeming the notification as less important.
Claim 62 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 52 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 53, ORR et al with HOWARD teach the method of claim 52, ORR et al further teach wherein determining to output the notification at the later time is based at least in part on determining that the media content associated with the attribute has lapsed (ORR et al: paras 0110-111, 0150, 0192—user preference to watch a sporting event after it has already finished, relevancy score associated with each media items, attributes/parameters associate with the displayed media items).
Claim 63 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 53 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 54, ORR et al with HOWARD teach the method of claim 53, HOWARD further teaches wherein determining that the media content associated with the attribute has lapsed further comprising: calculating an importance metric of a subsequent attribute of the media content at the later time; and determining that the importance metric is lower than an importance threshold (paras 0101, 0155—notification is disabled and not displayed if the priority score is below the threshold).
Claim 64 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 54 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 55, ORR et al with HOWARD teach the method of claim 54, HOWARD further teaches the method further comprising waiting a predefined amount of time before calculating the importance metric of the subsequent attribute of the media content (paras 0102, 0157—higher priority sources are given a greater weight and/or importance and are sorted at a higher level than items with a lower priority level).
Claim 65 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 55 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 56, ORR et al with HOWARD teach the method of claim 52, ORR et al further teach wherein determining not to output the notification at the computing device at the current time further comprises determining that the notification is not relevant to the user (paras 0087, 0124, 0126, 0144, 0155—determining and ranking media items according to relevancy/popularity from high to low with lower relevancy scores positioned on the opposite side the of the user interface).
Claim 66 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 56 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 57, ORR et al with HOWARD teach the method of claim 56, ORR et al further teach wherein determining that the notification is not relevant to the user further comprises generating, based on a comparison of the source from which the notification originated to the profile, a relevance score corresponding to the user (paras 0087, 0124, 0126, 0144, 0155—determining and ranking media items according to relevancy/popularity from high to low with lower relevancy scores positioned on the opposite side the of the user interface; HOWARD: paras 0006-7, 0099-102—notification priority score corresponding to user).
Claim 67 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 57 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 58, ORR et al with HOWARD teach the method of claim 57, HOWARD further teaches the method further comprising: based at least in part on determining the relevance score is below a relevance threshold, performing the refraining from outputting the notification at the computing device (paras 0101, 0155—disabling the first type of notification for the user for electronic messages from the sender if the user-assigned priority score is below the predefined threshold).
Claim 68 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 58 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 59, ORR et al with HOWARD teach the 59 method of claim 57, ORR et al further teach the method further comprising transmitting the notification to a user device distinct from the computing device (pages 317-318 paras 0196-199).
Claim 69 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 59 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 60, ORR et al with HOWARD teach the method of claim 52, ORR et al further teach the method further comprising: querying a privacy setting table associated with the profile for a privacy setting parameter corresponding to the source of the notification; based at least in part on determining that at least one privacy setting parameter meets a pre-defined privacy threshold, performing the refraining from outputting the notification at the computing device (paras 0158—privacy indication; HOWARD: paras 0278—privacy policies).
Claim 70 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 70 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 61, ORR et al with HOWARD teach the method of claim 52, ORR et al further teach wherein determining not to output the notification at the computing device at the current time further comprises: querying an importance database based on the attribute of the media content; calculating an importance metric associated with the attribute; and determining that the importance metric is greater than an importance threshold (paras 0152-153, 0155, 0277—parameter value, media items with higher relevancy scores are positioned proximate to one side of the user interface, personal information data can be used to deliver targeted content that is of greater interest to the user enabling calculated control of the delivered content; HOWARD: para 0101—user-assigned priority score is above a predefined threshold).
Claim 71 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 61 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Conclusion
III. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2012/0323933, US 2017/0315979, US 2019/0324444.
IV. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. 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.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights