Status Of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-13, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Clasen, US Pat 11,558,672.
Regarding claims 1, 19, 20 Clasen discloses a first electronic device in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices, comprising:
one or more processors (fig. 7, 704);
memory (fig. 7, 702); and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions (col. 7, ll. 53-67) for:
receiving, via the one or more input devices, a first input corresponding to a request to display a first user interface of a first application (fig. 6, 610; col. 6, ll. 19-38, 45-49 (accessing an application from a plurality of applications involves selection-which is a request to open the application interface for using)); and
in response to receiving the first input, displaying, via the display generation component, the first user interface of the first application (fig. 6, 610; col. 6, ll. 19-49 (for interface see information that user interacts with in the application in line 49)), including:
in accordance with a determination that input to a second electronic device, different from the first electronic device, for interaction with first content in a second application, different from the first application, satisfies one or more first criteria, displaying, in the first user interface, first recommended content based on the first content (fig. 6, 630, 635; col. 6. ll. 66-col7, ll. 39 (a second application may provide relevant content to content interacted with on first application-the criteria is based on relevance relationship)); and
in accordance with a determination that the input to the second electronic device for interaction with the first content in the second application does not satisfy the one or more first criteria, forgoing displaying, in the first user interface, the first recommended content (fig. 6, 63, 635; col. 6. ll. 66-col7, ll. 39 (criteria not met or content not relevant will not be mined for recommendation or indication of availability to the user)).
Regarding claim 4, Clasen discloses the method, wherein the first application is a video content browsing and playback application, and the first recommended content includes a representation of a video content item that is selectable to display the video content item (Clasen: col. 6, ll. 19-49).
Regarding claim 7, Clasen discloses the method, wherein: the first recommended content is a video content version of respective content (col. 11, ll. 1-19 (see video programming)); and the first recommended content is recommended based on a text-based version of the respective content consumed in the second application (col. 3, ll. 34-67 (keywords from content meet text version of content); col. 6, ll 19-49).
Regarding claim 8, Clasen discloses the method, wherein the first application is a text-based content browsing and display application (fig. 8B (internet browsing)), and the first recommended content includes a representation of a text-based content item that is selectable to display the text-based content item (col. 3, ll. 34-67 (keywords from content meet text version of content)).
Regarding claim 11, Clasen discloses the method, wherein: the first recommended content is a text content version of respective content (col. 3, ll. 34-67 (keywords from content meet text version of content)); and the first recommended content is recommended based on a video-based version of the respective content consumed in the second application (col. 11, ll. 1-19 (see video programming)).
Regarding claim 12, Clasen discloses the method, wherein: the first recommended content is related to a person and recommended based on text-based content consumed in the second application (col. 3, ll. 34-67 (keywords from content meet text version of content)), wherein the text-based content consumed in the second application is related to the person (col. 3, ll. 34-67 (keywords from content meet text version of content-see actor fig. 2)).
Regarding claim 13, Clasen discloses the method, wherein: the first recommended content is related to a person and recommended based on video content consumed in the second application, wherein the video content consumed in the second application is related to the person (fig. 6; entire; col. 6, ll. 19-49).
Regarding claim 18, Clasen discloses the method, wherein the first recommended content is based on a location of the electronic device, one or more topics designated as of interest to a user of the electronic device, one or more indications related to one or more sources of content, or a combination of two or more thereof (fig. 4, entire; col. 6, ll. 19-49).
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 2, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clasen, US Pat. 11,558,672, in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 2, Clasen does not explicitly disclose the method, wherein the first electronic device and the second electronic device are signed into a same user account or profile, and the interaction with the first content in the second application is associated with the user account or profile.
Examiner takes official notice that it was well known before the effective filing date of the instant application to track the effectiveness of content recommended to user across multiple devices in order to collect a comprehensive statistic of hits and misses in making recommendations to a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Clasen to include usage tracking across devices in order to collect a comprehensive statistic of hits and misses in making recommendations to a user.
Regarding claim 14, Clasen discloses wherein the first application tracks one or more favorite sports teams of a user of the first electronic device, the second application tracks one or more favorite sports teams of the user of the first electronic device, and the one or more sports teams tracked in the first application and the one or more sports teams tracked in the second application (col. 6, ll. 19-49; fig. 1-9 (tracks across applications and store in communal memory)). Clasen does not explicitly disclose are synchronized across the first electronic device and the second electronic device.
Examiner takes official notice that it was well known before the effective filing date of the instant application to track the effectiveness of content recommended to user across multiple devices in order to collect a comprehensive statistic of hits and misses in making recommendations to a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Clasen to include usage tracking across devices in order to collect a comprehensive statistic of hits and misses in making recommendations to a user.
Claims 3, 5-6, 9-10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clasen, US Pat. 11,558,672, in view of Krieger, USPG_Pub. 20040268403.
Regarding claim 3, Clasen does not explicitly disclose the method, wherein the first recommended content includes a representation of a sports team that is selectable to designate the sports team as a favorite sports team.
Krieger discloses the method, wherein the first recommended content includes a representation of a sports team that is selectable to designate the sports team as a favorite sports team (fig. 2-3; Para. 28-30 (favorites in the TV Planner a personalized by selection by user)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Clasen to include the method, wherein the first recommended content includes a representation of a sports team that is selectable to designate the sports team as a favorite sports team as disclosed by Krieger in order to support identifying of television schedule data that is associated with a web content to be able to notify user’s when an event involving their favorite team for example is ongoing or coming up.
Regarding claim 5, Clasen discloses recommending relevant content identified in the second application or third applications (col. 6, ll. 19-49 (applications meet first and second applications)) but does not explicitly disclose the method, wherein the first recommended content is recommended based on a sports team that is identified as a favorite sports team.
Krieger discloses the method, wherein the first recommended content is recommended based on a sports team that is identified as a favorite sports team (fig. 2-3; Para. 28-30 (favorites in the TV Planner a personalized by selection by user)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Clasen to include the method, wherein the first recommended content is recommended based on a sports team that is identified as a favorite sports team as disclosed by Krieger in order to support identifying of television schedule data that is associated with a web content to be able to notify user’s when an event involving their favorite team for example is ongoing or coming up.
Regarding claim 6, Clasen discloses the method, wherein the first recommended content is recommended based on text-based content consumed in the second application (col. 6, ll. 19-49). Clasen does not explicitly disclose wherein the content is related to one or more sports teams.
Krieger discloses wherein the content is related to one or more sports teams (fig. 2-3; Para. 28-30 (favorites in the TV Planner a personalized by selection by user)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Clasen to include wherein the content is related to one or more sports teams as disclosed by Krieger in order to support identifying of television schedule data that is associated with a web content to be able to notify user’s when an event involving their favorite team for example is ongoing or coming up.
Regarding claim 9, Clasen discloses recommending text-based content items in the second or third applications (col. 6, ll. 19-49). Clasen does not explicitly disclose the method, wherein the content item is recommended based on a sports team that is identified as a favorite sports team.
Krieger discloses the method, wherein the content item is recommended based on a sports team that is identified as a favorite sports team (fig. 2-3; Para. 28-30 (favorites in the TV Planner a personalized by selection by user)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Clasen to include the method, wherein the content item is recommended based on a sports team that is identified as a favorite sports team as disclosed by Krieger in order to support identifying of television schedule data that is associated with a web content to be able to notify user’s when an event involving their favorite team for example is ongoing or coming up.
Regarding claim 10, Clasen disclose the method, wherein the first recommended content is recommended based on video content consumed in the second application (col. 6, ll. 19-49). Clasen does not explicitly disclose that the video content consumed is related to one or more sports teams.
Krieger discloses the video content consumed is related to one or more sports teams (fig. 2-3; Para. 28-30 (favorites in the TV Planner a personalized by selection by user)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Clasen to include the video content consumed is related to one or more sports teams as disclosed by Krieger in order to support identifying of television schedule data that is associated with a web content to be able to notify user’s when an event involving their favorite team for example is ongoing or coming up.
Regarding claim 15, Clasen does not explicitly disclose the method, wherein the first recommended content includes one or more representations of one or more sports teams, wherein input associated with the one or more representations of the one or more sports teams designates the corresponding sports teams as favorite sports teams in the first application.
Krieger discloses the method, wherein the first recommended content includes one or more representations of one or more sports teams, wherein input associated with the one or more representations of the one or more sports teams designates the corresponding sports teams as favorite sports teams in the first application (Para. 30 (by selecting a favorite sport team it gets added to users TV planner the selection is a designation)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Clasen to include the method, wherein the first recommended content includes one or more representations of one or more sports teams, wherein input associated with the one or more representations of the one or more sports teams designates the corresponding sports teams as favorite sports teams in the first application as disclosed by Krieger in order to support identifying of television schedule data that is associated with a web content to be able to notify user’s when an event involving their favorite team for example is ongoing or coming up.
Regarding claim 17, Clasen does not explicitly disclose the method, wherein the first recommended content is recommended based on one or more sports teams that are designated as favorite sports teams, and not based on one or more sports teams that are recommended but not designated as favorite sports teams.
Krieger discloses the method, wherein the first recommended content is recommended based on one or more sports teams that are designated as favorite sports teams, and not based on one or more sports teams that are recommended but not designated as favorite sports teams (Para. 28-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Clasen to include the method, wherein the first recommended content is recommended based on one or more sports teams that are designated as favorite sports teams, and not based on one or more sports teams that are recommended but not designated as favorite sports teams as disclosed by Krieger in order to support identifying of television schedule data that is associated with a web content to be able to notify user’s when an event involving their favorite team for example is ongoing or coming up.
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.
Claim 1-20 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,483,756 in view of Official Notice. Claim 1-20 of the patent claims discloses all in claims 1-20 of the instant application claims except the method, wherein the first electronic device and the second electronic device are signed into a same user account or profile, and the interaction with the first content in the second application is associated with the user account or profile.
But the Examiner takes official notice that it was well known before the effective filing date of the instant application to track the effectiveness of content recommended to user across multiple devices in order to collect a comprehensive statistic of hits and misses in making recommendations to a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify claims 1-20 of the patent to obtain claims 1-20 of the application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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. Prior art fails to teach or reasonably disclose the method, further comprising: while displaying the first recommended content, including a first representation of a first sports team, receiving, via the one or more input devices, a second input corresponding to a request to designate the first sports team as a favorite sports team; and in response to receiving the second input, designating the first sports team as a favorite sports team, and initiating a process to recommend additional recommended content based on the first sports team" as recited in claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY BANTAMOI whose telephone number is (571)270-3581. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST..
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, John Miller can be reached on 571-272-7353. 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.
/ANTHONY BANTAMOI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights