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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claims 1, 4, 12 and 18-20 have been amended and the Terminal Disclaimer overcome the previous Double Patenting rejection.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/20/2026disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of prior patent No. 12342044, 11838590, 11405693 and 10869092 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US 2016/0316269) in view of Gerba (US 2011/0093897).
Regarding claim 1, Parker discloses a system for an adaptive electronic program guide, the system comprising:
at least one processor (see at least Fig. 2); and
at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory has computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor (see at least Fig. 2), cause the at least one processor to:
monitor patterns of browsing within an electronic program guide of channels presented in the electronic program guide (anytime a channel is selected for viewing via a programing guide, the electronic device may store data regarding what channel is selected and being watched and for how long; see at least paragraph 0053);
determine a group of channels presented in the electronic program guide that a user is more likely to return to than other channels presented in the electronic program guide based on the monitored patterns of browsing within the electronic program guide (the electronic device may produce a list of channels utilizing the stored data and incorporate channels from the list of frequently watched channels stored, maintained and updated; see at least paragraphs 0054-0057); and
present for selection in the electronic program guide, based on the monitored patterns of browsing within the electronic program guide, the determined group of channels that the user is more likely to return to together with each other separately from the other channels presented in the electronic program guide (displaying the list in the program guide; see at least Figs. 4-5B and paragraphs 0068-0071);
wherein:
presenting for selection in the electronic program guide, based on the monitored patterns of browsing within the electronic program guide, the determined a group of channels that the user is more likely to return to together with each other separately from the other channels presented in the electronic program guide comprises displaying the determined group of channels as an adaptive frequented channel section and displaying the other channels within a static section such that a gap separates the adaptive frequented channel section and the static section (displaying the list in the program guide with other channels separated; see at least Figs. 4-5B and paragraphs 0068-0071).
Parker discloses the gap that separates the adaptive frequented channel section and the static section; as above, but is not clear about that the gap has a height of at least one cell of the guide.
Gerba discloses the above missing limitation; an AD cell that separate two lists in the IPG, wherein the AD cell about the height of three program cells; see at least Fig. 5 and paragraph 0050.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Parker by the teachings of Gerba by having the above limitations so to be provide an IPG containing schedule data for multiple channels and advertising data; see at least the Abstract.
Regarding claim 12, Parker in view of Gerba disclose the system of claim 1 wherein the determination of the group of channels is based on a portion of the monitoring patterns of browsing within the electronic program guide of channels presented in the electronic program guide that occurred over a limited recent time window measured from a current time (Parker; currently watched channels; see at least paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 13, Parker in view of Gerba disclose the system of claim 12 wherein the limited recent time window measured from a current time is selected from the group consisting of: a past week, a past two weeks, a past month, a past six weeks, a past three months, and a past year (Parker; see at least paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 14, Parker in view of Gerba disclose the system of claim 12 wherein the limited recent time window measured from a current time is selectable by the user (Parker; see at least paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 15, Parker in view of Gerba disclose the system of claim 12 wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the determination of the group of channels presented in the electronic program guide that the user is more likely to return to than other channels presented in the electronic program guide each time the electronic program guide is presented (Parker; updating the list; see at least paragraphs 0056-0058).
Regarding claim 16, Parker in view of Gerba disclose the system of claim 1 wherein the presenting in the electronic program guide, based on the monitored patterns of browsing within the electronic program guide, the determined group of channels that the user is more likely to return to includes the computer- executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, causing the at least one processor to:
present the determined group of channels that the user is more likely to return to in a top portion of the electronic program guide above and separate from the other channels presented in the electronic program guide (Parker; group 508 is on top of group 505; see at least Figs. 4-5B and paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 17, Parker in view of Gerba disclose the system of claim 16 wherein the presenting in the electronic program guide, the determined group of channels that the user is more likely to return to includes the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further causing the at least one processor to:
when the electronic program guide is opened by the user, initially place a selection cursor on a first channel of the determined group of channels that the user is more likely to return to based on the monitored patterns of browsing within the electronic program guide (Parker; see at least Fig. 5B); and
place the selection cursor on a first channel of the other channels presented in the electronic program guide when, with the selection cursor, the user reaches an end of the determined group of channels that the user is more likely to return to and continues to move down the selection cursor (Parker; see at least paragraphs 0067 and 0070-0071).
Regarding claim 18, Parker in view of Gerba disclose the system of claim 17 wherein the electronic program guide comprises one or more tables of television channels wherein each row of the one or more tables represents a different television channel and includes programming of the different television channel, and each column of the one or more tables represents a different time slot for the programming of the television channels and wherein the determined group of channels that the user is more likely to return to based on the monitored patterns of browsing within the electronic program guide is a separate table within the electronic program guide positioned and spaced above another table within the electronic program guide that includes the other channels presented in the electronic program guide (Parker; see at least Figs. 4-5B and paragraph 007).
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1, wherein Parker discloses determining an identity of a particular user using an electronic program guide; see at least paragraphs 0060-0061.
Regarding claim 20, Parker in view of Gerba disclose the method of claim 19 wherein the gap that separates the adaptive frequented channel section and the static section has a height of at least two cells of the electronic program guide (the combination of Parker’s adaptive frequented channel section and the static section and Gerba’s gap that is about the height of three cells; see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Gerba and further in view of Blumenau (US 6,108,637).
Regarding claim 2, Parker in view of Gerba disclose the system of claim 1 and discloses the monitoring patterns of browsing within the electronic program guide of channels presented in the electronic program guide includes and storing the monitored information; as in the rejection of claim 1, but are not clear about wherein the monitoring causing the at least one processor to determine lengths of time the user leaves a selection cursor to which the user moves the selection cursor based on the monitoring of the cursor and store the determined lengths of time.
Blumenau discloses the above missing limitations; see at least col. 16, lines 13-60.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Parker in view of Gerba by the teachings of Blumenau by having the above limitations so to be able to determine how attentive the observer was to the content, since an observer frequently watches the position of the one-screen pointer when viewing the scree; see at least col. 16, lines 13-60.
Regarding claim 3, Parker in view of Gerba disclose and further in view of Blumenau disclose the system of claim 2 wherein the determining a group of channels presented in the electronic program guide that a user is more likely to return to includes the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, causing the at least one processor to:
compare to each other the determined lengths of time that the user left the selection cursor on channels within the electronic program guide to which the user moved the selection cursor while browsing within the electronic program guide (the combination of Parker and Blumenau; see at least the rejection of claim 2);
rank channels within the electronic program guide to which the user moved the selection cursor while browsing within the electronic program guide based on the comparison to each other of the determined lengths of time that the user left the selection cursor on the channels (the combination of Parker’s ranking; see at least Figs. 4-5B and Blumenau’s cursor; see at least the rejection of claim 2);
determine a group of top ranked channels according to the ranking of channels within the electronic program guide to which the user moved the selection cursor (the combination of Parker’s ranking; see at least Figs. 4-5B and paragraph 0062 and Blumenau’s cursor; see at least the rejection of claim 2); and
determine the group of top ranked channels to be the group of channels presented in the electronic program guide that a user is more likely to return to than other channels presented in the electronic program guide (Parker; see at least Figs. 4-5B and paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 4, Parker in view of Gerba disclose and further in view of Blumenau disclose the system of claim 3 wherein the monitoring patterns of browsing within the electronic program guide of channels presented in the electronic program guide includes the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further causing the at least one processor to:
associate one or more of a time of day, a day of week, and a time of year with each occurrence of the user leaving the selection cursor on channels within the electronic program guide to which the user moves the selection cursor while browsing within the electronic program guide (the monitoring of Parker; see at least the rejection of claim 1 and the cursor of Blumenau; see at least the rejection of claim 2 ); and
store the association of the one or more of a time of day, a day of week and a time of year with each occurrence of the user leaving the selection cursor channels within the electronic program guide to which the user moves the selection cursor while browsing within the electronic program guide (the storing of Parker; see at least the rejection of claim 1 and the cursor of Blumenau; see at least the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, Parker in view of Gerba disclose and further in view of Blumenau disclose the system of claim 4 wherein the comparing to each other the determined lengths of time that the user left the selection cursor on channels within the electronic program guide to which the user moved the selection cursor while browsing within the electronic program guide includes the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, causing the at least one processor to:
determine one or more of a current time of day, a current day of week and a current time of year (parker; see at least paragraph 0062); and
limit the comparison to each other of the determined lengths of time that the user left the selection cursor on channels within the electronic program guide to be a comparison between determined lengths of time associated with the determined one or more of the current time of day, the current day of week and the current time of year, and wherein the ranking each channel within the electronic program guide to which the user moved the selection cursor while browsing within the electronic program guide is based on the comparison limited to the determined lengths of time associated with the determined one or more of the current time of day, the current day of week and the current time of year (the monitoring of Parker; see at least the rejection of claim 1 and the cursor of Blumenau; see at least the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 6, Parker in view of Gerba disclose and further in view of Blumenau disclose the system of claim 3 wherein the monitoring patterns of browsing within the electronic program guide of channels presented in the electronic program guide includes the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further causing the at least one processor to:
determine one or more channels on which the user previews one or more programs within the electronic program guide (the monitoring of Parker; see at least the rejection of claim 1);
determine lengths of time the user previews the one or more programs within the electronic program guide on the one or more channels (the monitoring of Parker; see at least the rejection of claim 1); and
store the determined lengths of time the user previews the one or more programs within the electronic program guide on the one or more channels (the storing of Parker; see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Parker in view of Gerba disclose and further in view of Blumenau disclose the system of claim 6 wherein the ranking channels within the electronic program guide includes the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further causing the at least one processor to:
rank channels within the electronic program guide to which the user moved the selection cursor while browsing within the electronic program guide and on which the user previewed one or more programs within the electronic program guide higher than other channels to which the user moved the selection cursor while browsing within the electronic program guide but on which the user did not preview one or more programs within the electronic program guide (the combination of Parker’s ranking; see at least Figs. 4-5B and paragraph 0062 and Blumenau’s cursor; see at least the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 8, Parker in view of Gerba disclose and further in view of Blumenau disclose the system of claim 7 wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to:
compare to each other the determined lengths of time the user previews the one or more programs within the electronic program guide on the one or more channels (the ranking of Parker; see at least Figs. 4-5B and paragraph 0062), wherein the ranking channels within the electronic program guide includes the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further causing the at least one processor to:
rank channels within the electronic program guide to which the user moved the selection cursor while browsing within the electronic program guide further based on the comparison to each other the determined lengths of time the user previews the one or more programs within the electronic program guide on the one or more channels (the combination of Parker’s ranking; see at least Figs. 4-5B and paragraph 0062 and Blumenau’s cursor; see at least the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 9, Parker in view of Gerba disclose and further in view of Blumenau disclose the system of claim 3 wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to:
over a defined period of time, determine one or more channels presented in the electronic program guide which the user selects for viewing (the monitoring of Parker; see at least the rejection of claim 1);
determine lengths of time the user views the one or more channels presented in the electronic program guide which the user selects for viewing over the defined period of time (the monitoring of Parker; see at least the rejection of claim 1); and
store the determined lengths of time the user views the one or more channels presented in the electronic program guide which the user selects for viewing (the storing of Parker; see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Parker in view of Gerba disclose and further in view of Blumenau disclose the system of claim 9 wherein the ranking channels within the electronic program guide includes the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further causing the at least one processor to:
rank channels within the electronic program guide which the user selected for viewing over the defined period of time higher than other channels within the electronic program guide which the user did not select for viewing over the defined period of time (Parker’s ranking; see at least Figs. 4-5B and paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 11, Parker in view of Gerba disclose and further in view of Blumenau disclose the system of claim 10 wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to:
compare to each other the determined lengths of time the user views the one or more channels presented in the electronic program guide which the user selects for viewing, wherein the ranking channels within the electronic program guide to which the user moved the selection cursor while browsing within the electronic program guide includes the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further causing the at least one processor to:
rank channels within the electronic program guide to which the user moved the selection cursor while browsing within the electronic program guide further based on the comparison to each other the determined lengths of time the user views the one or more channels presented in the electronic program guide which the user selects for viewing (the combination of Parker’s monitoring and ranking; see at least Figs. 4-5B and paragraph 0062 and Blumenau’s cursor; see at least the rejection of claim 2).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 ET.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/YASSIN ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
