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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6-10, 13, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12418701. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions are drawn towards content navigation and personalization. The instant application claims are broader in every aspect than the patent claims and are therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claims 1, 13 and 17 correspond to claims 1 and 3.
Claims 6-7 and 10 correspond to claim 1.
Claim 8 corresponds to claim 3.
Claims 9, 16 and 20 correspond to claim 3.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US PG Pub No. 2009/0103887), in view of Ranjeet et al (US PG Pub No. 2017/0134776), further in view of Brehm et al (US PG Pub No. 2020/0351555).
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 17, Choi et al teaches a method comprising:
generating, by an application executed by a processing element, a first set of content portions from a plurality of content portions based on a first plurality of predetermined stored metadata tags (i.e. generating scene(s) corresponding to character(s)) (Figures 3, 5; Abstract, Para. 0026-27, 0064-66).
The reference is unclear with respect to metadata tags in a user profile of a user and generating, by the application, new priority metadata tags based on a calculated similarity between the first plurality of predetermined stored metadata tags and content metadata tags in the first set of content portions.
In similar field of endeavor, Ranjeet et al teaches metadata tags in a user profile of a user (Abstract, Para. 0018) and generating, by the application, new priority metadata tags (i.e. video categories) based on a calculated similarity between the first plurality of predetermined stored metadata tags (i.e. video categories) and content metadata tags in the first set of content portions (i.e. information associated with scene(s), wherein using the categories of clips within a video, various portions of the video can be selected in accordance with preferences within the viewer profile) (Para. 0018-19, 0023, 0027-28, 0033). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference before the effectively filing date of the clamed invention for the common knowledge purpose of providing user with more customized content that they would watch based on preference(s).
The combination is unclear with respect to wherein at least one of the new priority metadata tags corresponds to a franchise.
In similar field of endeavor, Brehm et al teaches wherein at least one of the new priority metadata tags corresponds to a franchise (Figures 5-6; Para. 0040). In addition, the reference also teaches concept of metadata tags in a user profile of a user and generating, by the application, new priority metadata tags based on a calculated similarity between the first plurality of predetermined stored metadata tags and content metadata tags in the first set of content portions (See Figures 4A-B, 5-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination before the effectively filing date of the clamed invention for the purpose of providing improved resource allocation due to retrieving only media content for channels preferred by the user, thereby reducing wasted network traffic and storage allocation for media content items the user will not want to watch.
Claims 2, 14 and 18 are rejected wherein the franchise is associated with the first set of content portions (Brehm: Figures 5-6; Para. 0040).
Claim 3 is rejected wherein at least one predetermined stored metadata tag is based on a content portion of the first set of content portions that the user has viewed (i.e. playing one or more scene(s) including selected character(s)) (Choi: Figure 6; Para. 0070; Brehm: Figures 5-6; Para. 0035, 0040).
Claims 4, 15 and 19 are rejected wherein at least one predetermined stored metadata tag of the first plurality of predetermined stored metadata tags is a scene-level metadata tag corresponding to a scene in at least one content portion of the first set of content portions (Choi: Para.0051-52).
Claim 5 is rejected wherein at least one of the new priority metadata tags corresponds to a similar scene as the scene to which the scene-level metadata tag corresponds (Choi: Figure 3; Ranjeet: Para. 0018, 0033 and Brehm: Figure 4A-B, 5-6).
Claim 6 is rejected wherein each content portion of the first set of content portions includes a subset of frames of a content item (i.e. generating scene(s) corresponding to character(s)) (Figures 3, 5; Abstract, Para. 0026-27, 0064-66).
Claim 7 is rejected wherein filtering the first set of content portions based on one or more filter inputs to generate a filtered set of content portions, wherein the one or more filter inputs include at least one of the new priority metadata tags (Choi: Para. 0069 and Ranjeet: Para. 0018-19, 0023, 0027-28, 0033).
Claim 8 is rejected wherein a filter input of the one or more filter inputs is selectable from a set of scene categories (Choi: Figure 3 and Ranjeet: Para. 0018, 0033).
Claims 9, 16 and 20 are rejected wherein one or more of the new priority metadata tags corresponds to a class selected from an activity, a mood, a joke, an event, or a character (Choi: Figure 3 and Ranjeet: Para. 0018, 0033).
Claim 10 is rejected wherein transmitting at least one content portion in the filtered set of content portions to an interface on a user device for presentation to the user (i.e. playing one or more scene(s) including selected character(s)) (Choi: Figure 6; Para. 0070).
Claim 11 is rejected wherein the interface is configured to display at least one content portion in the filtered set of content portions corresponding to the user profile and corresponding to at least one of the new priority metadata tags (Choi: Para. 0069 and Ranjeet: Para. 0018-19, 0023, 0027-28, 0033).
Claim 12 is rejected wherein at least one of the new priority metadata tags is based on a frequency of occurrence of at least one predetermined stored metadata tag of the first plurality of predetermined stored metadata tags (Choi: Figure 4; Para. 0069 and Ranjeet: Para. 0019, 0037, claim 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUNAL LANGHNOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 5:00PM 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, 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.
/KUNAL LANGHNOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights