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
This Office Action is made in reply to Application Serial Number 19/258,729 filed July 2, 2025. As originally filed, Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second window" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Compact Prosecution
Examiner contacted Applicant’s representative to propose an Examiner’s amendment to expedite prosecution. While Applicant’s representative was very professional and helpful in trying to move prosecution forward, Applicant did not accept the Examiner’s amendment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 10 – 13 and 17 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brehm et al., US Pub. 2020/0110810 A1 (hereinafter Brehm).
In regards to Claim 1, Brehm discloses a method of presenting videos, comprising:
receiving an instruction of presenting a video (Brehm: Fig. 5 and [0052], where output of a first content item is detected, i.e. a user is viewing a movie on user equipment; Fig. 2 and [0026], where user equipment is currently receiving content as indicated on a grid);
determining whether the video satisfies a predetermined condition (Brehm: [0004] – [0005]), where the engagement level of the content is determined and compared with an engagement threshold [a condition]; Fig. 7 and [0065], where an engagement level for the first content is generated, i.e. a raw score from adding all weight values together; [0066], where an engagement threshold [predetermined condition] may be retrieved from storage; [0078], where the user may be allowed to set their threshold for notification);
displaying a feedback control on an interface while presenting the video on the interface in response to determining that the video satisfies the predetermined condition, wherein the feedback control is configured to trigger feedback of being not interested in the video (Brehm: Fig. 1 and [0022], where when a user changes the display to a new show, it is determined that the user has a low level of engagement [video satisfies the predetermined condition], and a notification is presented to the user regarding the content recommendation; Fig. 1 and [0023], where a content recommendation prompt 11 is displayed to the user as an invitation to change the display to the recommended content; Fig. 1 and [0024], where the content recommendation provides options such as a “Yes” option 116 [not interested in the video] and a “No” option 118);
presenting the video on the interface without displaying the feedback control on the interface in response to determining that the video does not satisfy the predetermined condition (Brehm: Fig. 1 and [0020], where the level of user engagement with the content indicates that the content recommendation interface should not be presented, i.e. it is blocked).
Regarding Claim 2, Brehm discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining whether the video satisfies a predetermined condition comprises:
acquiring a feedback score of the video (Brehm: [0004] – [0005]), where the engagement level of the content [feedback score] is determined; Fig. 7 and [0065], where an engagement level for the first content is generated, i.e. a raw score from adding all weight values together);
determining whether the feedback score of the video is greater than or equal to a score threshold (Brehm: [0061], where the system determines if the user is engaged with the content the user is watching. The system compares the length of time the user has watched the content with a time threshold from memory); and
determining that the video satisfies the predetermined condition in response to determining that the feedback score of the video is greater than or equal to the score threshold (Brehm: [0007], where if the content recommendation rises above a threshold, a prompt notification is presented; [0055], where an indicator of user interest in the content is monitored and if the user is not engaged with the content, as indicated by the user’s gaze not being directed to the content for a threshold percentage of the content presentation, then the content recommendation interface should be presented to the user).
Regarding Claim 3, Brehm discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining whether the video satisfies a predetermined condition comprises:
determining whether the video has a target identification, wherein the target identification indicates that a feedback score of the video is greater than or equal to a score threshold, and the target identification is generated and added to the video by a server (Brehm: [0007], where if the content recommendation rises above a threshold, a prompt notification is presented; [0055], where an indicator of user interest in the content is monitored and if the user is not engaged with the content, as indicated by the user’s gaze not being directed to the content for a threshold percentage of the content presentation, then the content recommendation interface should be presented to the user; [0031], where the media guidance application or content recommendation application may be client-server applications; [0039], where equipment devices may receive inputs from the user via input interface and transmit those input to the remote server for processing and generating the corresponding displays); and
determining that the video satisfies the predetermined condition in response to determining that the video has the target identification (Brehm: [0007], where if the content recommendation rises above a threshold, a prompt notification is presented; [0023], where if it is determined that the user is not engaged with the current content, the user is prompted to change the display to the recommended content).
Regarding Claim 4, Brehm discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving the feedback of being not interested in the video in response to detecting user input on the feedback control (Brehm: Fig. 1 and [0024], where the content recommendation provides options such as a “Yes” option 116. If the user selects the “Yes” option 116, the user equipment will change to the recommended content and no longer present the current content indicating a negative response to the current content; [0022], where if the user changes the display to a new show, it is determined that the user has a low level of engagement with the content).
Regarding Claim 5, Brehm discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
switching to present another video different from the video in response to receiving the feedback of being not interested in the video via the feedback control (Brehm: Fig. 1 and [0024], where if the user selects a “Yes” option 116, the user equipment 102 will change to the recommended content 104C).
Regarding Claim 6, Brehm discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a feedback message and transmitting the feedback message to a server in response to receiving the feedback of being not interested in the video via the feedback control, wherein the feedback message carries an identifier of the video (Brehm: [0066], where an engagement threshold can be retrieved from storage and if a user rejects a content recommendation, the system may evaluate whether the threshold was set too high such that content recommendations that were being made interrupted a user’s enjoyment of content, and, based on user’s reactions to the content recommendation, an adjustment of the threshold would be appropriate).
Regarding Claim 10, Brehm discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the presenting the video on the interface without displaying the feedback control on the interface in response to determining that the video does not satisfy the predetermined condition comprises:
in response to determining that the video does not satisfy the predetermined condition, determining whether a condition of displaying a feedback prompt message is satisfied (Brehm: [0053] – [0056], where the system determines viewer metrics indicating that the viewer is engaged with the content and thus the predetermined condition is not satisfied; [0005], where even if the user’s engagement level does not satisfy the condition, the system may still display the prompt for recommended content if the user’s predicted interest in the recommendation is high enough. For example, if the user is a baseball fan, then his preferences may indicate he watches baseball games of his favorite team in the later innings. The system may retrieve information about a current game and determine the game matches criteria associated with the user’s content preference. The content recommendation may be presented to the user even though a user’s engagement level with current content is also high); and
displaying the feedback prompt message on the interface in response to determining that the condition is satisfied, wherein the feedback prompt message indicates a feedback path for receiving the feedback of being not interested in the video (Brehm: Fig. 1 and [0022]-[0023], where in response to the user level of engagement to content to be low and a prediction that the user would be interested in the recommended content, i.e. a baseball game with a close score in the late stages of the game, the system displays the content recommendation prompt 110 to the user as an invitation to change the display to the recommended content).
In regards to Claim 11, Brehm discloses an electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor (Brehm: [0033], where system includes one or more microprocessors, digital signal processors, multi-core processor, processing units, etc.); and
at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and comprising computer-readable instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform operations (Brehm: [0035], where non-transitory computer readable medium may store instructions for executing content access applications) comprising:
receiving an instruction of presenting a video (Brehm: Fig. 5 and [0052], where output of a first content item is detected, i.e. a user is viewing a movie on user equipment; Fig. 2 and [0026], where user equipment is currently receiving content as indicated on a grid);
determining whether the video satisfies a predetermined condition (Brehm: [0004] – [0005]), where the engagement level of the content is determined and compared with an engagement threshold [a condition]; Fig. 7 and [0065], where an engagement level for the first content is generated, i.e. a raw score from adding all weight values together; [0066], where an engagement threshold [predetermined condition] may be retrieved from storage; [0078], where the user may be allowed to set their threshold for notification);
displaying a feedback control on an interface while presenting the video on the interface in response to determining that the video satisfies the predetermined condition, wherein the feedback control is configured to trigger feedback of being not interested in the video (Brehm: Fig. 1 and [0022], where when a user changes the display to a new show, it is determined that the user has a low level of engagement [video satisfies the predetermined condition], and a notification is presented to the user regarding the content recommendation; Fig. 1 and [0023], where a content recommendation prompt 11 is displayed to the user as an invitation to change the display to the recommended content; Fig. 1 and [0024], where the content recommendation provides options such as a “Yes” option 116 [not interested in the video] and a “No” option 118); and
presenting the video on the interface without displaying the feedback control on the interface in response to determining that the video does not satisfy the predetermined condition (Brehm: Fig. 1 and [0020], where the level of user engagement with the content indicates that the content recommendation interface should not be presented, i.e. it is blocked).
Regarding Claim 12, Brehm discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the determining whether the video satisfies a predetermined condition comprises:
acquiring a feedback score of the video (Brehm: [0004] – [0005]), where the engagement level of the content [feedback score] is determined; Fig. 7 and [0065], where an engagement level for the first content is generated, i.e. a raw score from adding all weight values together);
determining whether the feedback score of the video is greater than or equal to a score threshold (Brehm: [0061], where the system determines if the user is engaged with the content the user is watching. The system compares the length of time the user has watched the content with a time threshold from memory); and
determining that the video satisfies the predetermined condition in response to determining that the feedback score of the video is greater than or equal to the score threshold (Brehm: [0007], where if the content recommendation rises above a threshold, a prompt notification is presented; [0055], where an indicator of user interest in the content is monitored and if the user is not engaged with the content, as indicated by the user’s gaze not being directed to the content for a threshold percentage of the content presentation, then the content recommendation interface should be presented to the user).
Regarding Claim 13, Brehm discloses the electronic device of claim 11, the operations further comprising:
switching to present another video different from the video in response to receiving the feedback of being not interested in the video via the feedback control (Brehm: Fig. 1 and [0024], where if the user selects a “Yes” option 116, the user equipment 102 will change to the recommended content 104C).
Regarding Claim 17, Brehm discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the presenting the video on the interface without displaying the feedback control on the interface in response to determining that the video does not satisfy the predetermined condition comprises:
in response to determining that the video does not satisfy the predetermined condition, determining whether a condition of displaying a feedback prompt message is satisfied (Brehm: [0053] – [0056], where the system determines viewer metrics indicating that the viewer is engaged with the content and thus the predetermined condition is not satisfied; [0005], where even if the user’s engagement level does not satisfy the condition, the system may still display the prompt for recommended content if the user’s predicted interest in the recommendation is high enough. For example, if the user is a baseball fan, then his preferences may indicate he watches baseball games of his favorite team in the later innings. The system may retrieve information about a current game and determine the game matches criteria associated with the user’s content preference. The content recommendation may be presented to the user even though a user’s engagement level with current content is also high); and
displaying the feedback prompt message on the interface in response to determining that the condition is satisfied, wherein the feedback prompt message indicates a feedback path for receiving the feedback of being not interested in the video (Brehm: Fig. 1 and [0022]-[0023], where in response to the user level of engagement to content to be low and a prediction that the user would be interested in the recommended content, i.e. a baseball game with a close score in the late stages of the game, the system displays the content recommendation prompt 110 to the user as an invitation to change the display to the recommended content).
In regards to Claim 18, Brehm discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer-readable instructions that upon execution by a processor cause the processor to implement operations (Brehm: [0035], where non-transitory computer readable medium may store instructions for executing content access applications) comprising:
receiving an instruction of presenting a video (Brehm: Fig. 5 and [0052], where output of a first content item is detected, i.e. a user is viewing a movie on user equipment; Fig. 2 and [0026], where user equipment is currently receiving content as indicated on a grid);
determining whether the video satisfies a predetermined condition (Brehm: [0004] – [0005]), where the engagement level of the content is determined and compared with an engagement threshold [a condition]; Fig. 7 and [0065], where an engagement level for the first content is generated, i.e. a raw score from adding all weight values together; [0066], where an engagement threshold [predetermined condition] may be retrieved from storage; [0078], where the user may be allowed to set their threshold for notification);
displaying a feedback control on an interface while presenting the video on the interface in response to determining that the video satisfies the predetermined condition, wherein the feedback control is configured to trigger feedback of being not interested in the video (Brehm: Fig. 1 and [0022], where when a user changes the display to a new show, it is determined that the user has a low level of engagement [video satisfies the predetermined condition], and a notification is presented to the user regarding the content recommendation; Fig. 1 and [0023], where a content recommendation prompt 11 is displayed to the user as an invitation to change the display to the recommended content; Fig. 1 and [0024], where the content recommendation provides options such as a “Yes” option 116 [not interested in the video] and a “No” option 118); and
presenting the video on the interface without displaying the feedback control on the interface in response to determining that the video does not satisfy the predetermined condition (Brehm: Fig. 1 and [0020], where the level of user engagement with the content indicates that the content recommendation interface should not be presented, i.e. it is blocked).
Regarding Claim 19, Brehm discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, the operations further comprising:
switching to present another video different from the video in response to receiving the feedback of being not interested in the video via the feedback control (Brehm: Fig. 1 and [0024], where if the user selects a “Yes” option 116, the user equipment 102 will change to the recommended content 104C).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brehm in view of Aarnio et al., US Pub. 2015/0326688A1 (hereinafter Aarnio).
Regarding Claim 7, Brehm discloses the method of claim 1. But Brehm fails to explicitly disclose, further comprising: displaying a window in response to detecting user input on the feedback control, wherein the window comprises at least two reasons of being not interested in the video; and generating a feedback message and transmitting the feedback message to a server in response to receiving a selection of one of the at least two reasons, wherein the feedback message carries an identifier of the video and an identifier of the one of the at least two reasons.
Aarnio from a similar endeavor teaches displaying a window in response to detecting user input on the feedback control, wherein the window comprises at least two reasons of being not interested in the video (Aarnio: Fig. 6K and [0092], where in response to the user indicating dislike for a content item, a menu is generated that includes one or more questions to determine why the user does not like the content item. For example, the menu may inquire about the characteristics the user did not like regarding the song, such as the lyrics, guitar, drums or the tempo of the song); and
generating a feedback message and transmitting the feedback message to a server in response to receiving a selection of one of the at least two reasons, wherein the feedback message carries an identifier of the video and an identifier of the one of the at least two reasons (Aarnio: Fig. 1 and [0092], where based on the user's response to the menu, the segment based user profile platform 103 may update the user profile and may dynamically recommend another content item based on the user’s answers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brehm in view of Aarnio such that in response to the user's expression of dislike for the content (Brehm: Fig. 1 and [0024]), the user is prompted for a reason for their dislike of the content item, (Aarnio: [0092]). The allows the system to dynamically recommend another content item that should more accurately appeal to the user as the recommendation is based on the user's answers (Aarnio: [0092]).
Regarding Claim 14, Brehm discloses the electronic device of claim 11. But Brehm fails to explicitly disclose, the operations further comprising: displaying a window in response to detecting user input on the feedback control, wherein the window comprises at least two reasons of being not interested in the video; and generating a feedback message and transmitting the feedback message to a server in response to receiving a selection of one of the at least two reasons, wherein the feedback message carries an identifier of the video and an identifier of the one of the at least two reasons.
Aarnio from a similar endeavor teaches displaying a window in response to detecting user input on the feedback control, wherein the window comprises at least two reasons of being not interested in the video (Aarnio: Fig. 6K and [0092], where in response to the user indicating dislike for a content item, a menu is generated that includes one or more questions to determine why the user does not like the content item. For example, the menu may inquire about the characteristics the user did not like regarding the song, such as the lyrics, guitar, drums or the tempo of the song); and
generating a feedback message and transmitting the feedback message to a server in response to receiving a selection of one of the at least two reasons, wherein the feedback message carries an identifier of the video and an identifier of the one of the at least two reasons (Aarnio: Fig. 1 and [0092], where based on the user's response to the menu, the segment based user profile platform 103 may update the user profile and may dynamically recommend another content item based on the user’s answers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brehm in view of Aarnio such that in response to the user's expression of dislike for the content (Brehm: Fig. 1 and [0024]), the user is prompted for a reason for their dislike of the content item, (Aarnio: [0092]). The allows the system to dynamically recommend another content item that should more accurately appeal to the user as the recommendation is based on the user's answers (Aarnio: [0092]).
Regarding Claim 20, Brehm discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18. But Brehm fails to explicitly disclose, the operations further comprising: displaying a window in response to detecting user input on the feedback control, wherein the window comprises at least two reasons of being not interested in the video; and generating a feedback message and transmitting the feedback message to a server in response to receiving a selection of one of the at least two reasons, wherein the feedback message carries an identifier of the video and an identifier of the one of the at least two reasons.
Aarnio from a similar endeavor teaches displaying a window in response to detecting user input on the feedback control, wherein the window comprises at least two reasons of being not interested in the video (Aarnio: Fig. 6K and [0092], where in response to the user indicating dislike for a content item, a menu is generated that includes one or more questions to determine why the user does not like the content item. For example, the menu may inquire about the characteristics the user did not like regarding the song, such as the lyrics, guitar, drums or the tempo of the song); and
generating a feedback message and transmitting the feedback message to a server in response to receiving a selection of one of the at least two reasons, wherein the feedback message carries an identifier of the video and an identifier of the one of the at least two reasons (Aarnio: Fig. 1 and [0092], where based on the user's response to the menu, the segment based user profile platform 103 may update the user profile and may dynamically recommend another content item based on the user’s answers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brehm in view of Aarnio such that in response to the user's expression of dislike for the content (Brehm: Fig. 1 and [0024]), the user is prompted for a reason for their dislike of the content item, (Aarnio: [0092]). The allows the system to dynamically recommend another content item that should more accurately appeal to the user as the recommendation is based on the user's answers (Aarnio: [0092]).
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brehm in view of Zeiler et al., US Patent 10,750,245 B1 (hereinafter Zeiler).
Regarding Claim 8, Brehm discloses the method of claim 1. But Brehm fails to explicitly disclose, further comprising: displaying a window in response to detecting user input on the feedback control, wherein the second window comprises a confirmation control; and generating a feedback message and transmitting the feedback message to a server in response to receiving a selection of the confirmation control, wherein the feedback message carries an identifier of the video.
Zeiler from a similar endeavor teaches displaying a window in response to detecting user input on the feedback control, wherein the second window comprises a confirmation control (Zeiler: col. 2 line 58 through col. 3 line 10, where each label displayed on the user interface may be associated with additional interface elements and/or interaction modes for receiving entry and/or selection of user feedback, e.g. deletion and/or confirmation); and
generating a feedback message and transmitting the feedback message to a server in response to receiving a selection of the confirmation control, wherein the feedback message carries an identifier of the video (Zeiler: col. 8 II. 41 - 52, where a user interface includes elements for receiving selection of user feedback and for confirmation).
Because video repositories are large, the way in which a user may search for videos within the repository may be limited, (Zeiler: col. 1 II. 27-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art bet ore the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Brehm in view of Zeiler such that user interfaces can provide various elements including user feedback and confirmation, (Zeiler: col. 8 II. 41 - 52).
Regarding Claim 15, Brehm discloses the electronic device of claim 11. But Brehm fails to explicitly disclose, the operations further comprising: displaying a window in response to detecting user input on the feedback control, wherein the second window comprises a confirmation control; and generating a feedback message and transmitting the feedback message to a server in response to receiving a selection of the confirmation control, wherein the feedback message carries an identifier of the video.
Zeiler from a similar endeavor teaches displaying a window in response to detecting user input on the feedback control, wherein the second window comprises a confirmation control (Zeiler: col. 2 line 58 through col. 3 line 10, where each label displayed on the user interface may be associated with additional interface elements and/or interaction modes for receiving entry and/or selection of user feedback, e.g. deletion and/or confirmation); and
generating a feedback message and transmitting the feedback message to a server in response to receiving a selection of the confirmation control, wherein the feedback message carries an identifier of the video (Zeiler: col. 8 II. 41 - 52, where a user interface includes elements for receiving selection of user feedback and for confirmation).
Because video repositories are large, the way in which a user may search for videos within the repository may be limited, (Zeiler: col. 1 II. 27-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art bet ore the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Brehm in view of Zeiler such that user interfaces can provide various elements including user feedback and confirmation, (Zeiler: col. 8 II. 41 - 52).
.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lewis et al., US Patent 9,811,514 B1 teach annotating thumbnails with different interactive elements that are provided in a viewer interface depending on the state of the video represented by the thumbnail, i.e. watched, sharing buttons, etc., (col. 7 line 65 through col. 8 line 9).
Min et al., US Pub. 2024/0078589 A1 teach a recommendation system that is low cost and high efficiency which allows a user to enter feedback, i.e. a “dislike” button, via a UI element and which feedback responses can be used to improve the recommendations, ([0006] and [0066]).
Danker et al., US Pub. 2004/0040040 A1 teach generating a list of recommended programs based on negative user feedback, (Fig. 2 and [0017]). A user may indicate negative
feedback associated with a re-run episode of "Friends", ([0030]).
Jian et al., US Pub. 2024/0094875 A1 teach in response to a recommended video of a
target object being played, displaying an interactive window and continuing playing the
recommended video, (Abstract and [0042]).
Hong et al., US Pub. 2022/0095009 A1 teach the user feedback performing optimization
modeling is confirmed, ([0051]).
Javid et al., US Pub. 2007/0288966 A1 teach using mobile phones to receive
personalized content recommendation, search for favorite programs and view tv program guides, ([0013]). If the user does not like the program, the user may enter a negative feedback
to express disapproval, ([0033]).
Chen et al., CN 110222233 B teach determining background music similar to the
background music of the video currently being played and determine if a user has a preference
to this music, (Description).
Craner, US Pub. 2010/0122293 A1 teach that the user may select a feedback option to
provide reason for liking/disliking the asset being viewer via a provide feedback screen, (Fig. 8
and [0078]).
Matsakis, Louse, "TikTok Finally Explains How the 'For You' Algorithm Works", 18 June 2020, Wired, https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-finally-explains-for-you-algorithm-works/ teaches presenting an endless stream of videos uniquely tailored to each user with a user interface allowing a user to easily provide negative feedback by tapping “Not Interested”, (paras. 1 and 6).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cynthia M FOGG whose telephone number is (571)272-2741. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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.
/CYNTHIA M FOGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights