DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 21-34, 36, 37 and 40 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 21-34, 37-39 of copending Application No. 19/ (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application 19/413,114
Co-pending Application 19/364,780
Same Invention Analysis
Claim 21
Claim 21
Identical
Claim 22
Claim 22
Identical
Claim 23
Claim 23
Identical
Claim 24
Claim 24
Identical
Claim 25
Claim 25
Identical
Claim 26
Claim 26
Identical
Claim 27
Claim 27
Identical
Claim 28
Claim 28
Identical
Claim 29
Claim 29
Identical
Claim 30
Claim 30
Identical
Claim 31
Claim 31
Identical
Claim 32
Claim 32
Identical
Claim 33
Claim 33
Identical
Claim 34
Claim 34
Identical
Claim 36
Claim 37
Identical
Claim 37
Claim 38
Identical
Claim 40
Claim 39
Identical
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 25, 30-31, 35, and 40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dubinko et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0104521) in view of Inagaki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0083317).
Regarding claim 21, Dubinko et al. discloses a method for dynamically generating a navigable tile-based interface, the method comprising (see paragraphs 0048-0055 and fig. 4-5):
storing information that identifies a plurality of user profiles using at least one data structure, wherein each user profile of the plurality of user profiles comprises respective user characteristics information (see paragraphs 0031-0031; profile data store 155 containing per-user profiles, including demographic and interest information);
receiving, from a device associated with a first profile of the plurality of user profiles, a request for data associated with a user interface of a media content provider, wherein the user interface of the media content provider comprises the navigable tile-based interface (see paragraphs 0025-0028, 0032, 0043; client sessions and website login to obtain the personalized guide. Receiving the guide request is implicit in this disclosed interaction);
based at least in part on the request:
selecting a plurality of media content items based at least in part on user characteristics information of the first profile, wherein respective tiles for the plurality of media content items are to be included in the navigable tile-based interface (see paragraphs 0033-0035, 0040-0041, 0048-0049; session-responsive filtering, sorting, and sampling produce corresponding thumbnails);
transmitting data that comprises information for a personalized user interface tile, and that causes display of the navigable tile-based interface that comprises the personalized user interface tile (see paragraphs 0025, 0035, 0041; transmits sampled information to the client to produce the guide);
wherein the navigable tile-based interface is configured to display a consumption option for consuming the at least one media content item of the personalized user interface tile (see paragraphs 0043, 0045, 0053; provides content selection and playback through the displayed hyperlinks).
However, Dubinko et al. is silent as to wherein appearance of the personalized user interface tile is personalized based at least in part on media content information of at least one media content item of the plurality of media content items, and the user characteristics information of the first profile; wherein the appearance of the personalized user interface tile comprises a personalized image representative of at least a portion of the at least one media content item of the plurality of media content items, wherein the personalized image is personalized based on the user characteristics information of the first profile.
Inagaki et al. discloses wherein appearance of the personalized user interface tile is personalized based at least in part on media content information of at least one media content item of the plurality of media content items, and the user characteristics information of the first profile (see paragraphs 0157-0163, 0180; stores a favorite actor’s or athlete’s identify and substitutes a corresponding face-recognized program image as the thumbnail. The thumbnail therefore depends on both program imagery and the user’s preference);
wherein the appearance of the personalized user interface tile comprises a personalized image representative of at least a portion of the at least one media content item of the plurality of media content items, wherein the personalized image is personalized based on the user characteristics information of the first profile (see paragraph 0207-0208; replacing the program’s representative thumbnail with the first image recognizing the specified person); and
wherein the navigable tile-based interface is configured to display a consumption option for consuming the at least one media content item of the personalized user interface tile (see paragraph 0209; playback upon selection of the substituted thumbnail).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dubinko et al. with the teachings of Inagaki et al., the motivation being to select the representative frame using that user’s preference and supply it through the existing guide-delivery process.
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 25, Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21). Dubinko et al. discloses
wherein the data that causes display of the navigable tile-based interface is transmitted based at least in part on an authentication request (see paragraph 0043).
Regarding claims 30 and 40, Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21 and 31). Inagaki et al. discloses
receiving a user interface selection of the personalized user interface tile; and in response to the receiving, playing the at least one media content item (see paragraph 0209).
Regarding claim 35, Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 31). Dubinko et al. discloses wherein the data that causes display of the navigable tile-based interface is transmitted based at least in part on an authentication request (see paragraph 0043).
Claims 22-23 and 32-33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of Ma et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0026524).
Regarding claims 22 and 32, Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21 and 31).
However, Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. are silent as to transmitting additional data to cause the appearance of the personalized user interface tile to change to display another image representative of at least another portion of the at least one media content item of the plurality of media content items.
Ma et al. discloses transmitting additional data to cause the appearance of the personalized user interface tile to change to display another image representative of at least another portion of the at least one media content item of the plurality of media content items (see paragraphs 0031-0034, 0042).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. with the teachings of Ma et al., the motivation being to improve the preview as more useful representative material becomes available.
Regarding claims 23 and 33, Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21 and 31).
However, Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. are silent as to transmitting additional data to cause the appearance of the personalized user interface tile to change to display a looping clip of the at least one media content item of the plurality of media content items.
Ma et al. discloses transmitting additional data to cause the appearance of the personalized user interface tile to change to display a looping clip of the at least one media content item of the plurality of media content items (see paragraphs 0042).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. with the teachings of Ma et al., the motivation being to improve the preview as more useful representative material becomes available.
Claims 24, 29, 34 and 39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of Craner (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0163059).
Regarding claims 24 and 34, Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21 and 31).
However, Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. are silent as to wherein the navigable tile-based interface comprises a visual pattern of tiles, the method further comprising: transmitting a mapping information from the media content provider to cause arrangement of the tiles for the plurality of media content items according to the visual pattern of tiles based on the mapping information.
Craner discloses wherein the navigable tile-based interface comprises a visual pattern of tiles, the method further comprising: transmitting a mapping information from the media content provider to cause arrangement of the tiles for the plurality of media content items according to the visual pattern of tiles based on the mapping information (see paragraphs 0080-0081, 0085).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. with the teachings of Craner, the motivation being to arrange the selected programs consistently with the provider’s intended layout.
Regarding claims 29 and 39, Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21 and 31).
However, Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. are silent as to wherein the personalized image is personalized based at least in part on viewing history information associated with the first profile.
Craner discloses wherein the personalized image is personalized based at least in part on viewing history information associated with the first profile (see paragraphs 0031, 0086-0087).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. with the teachings of Craner, the motivation being to choose a frame within the user’s frequently watched scene.
Claims 26-28, 37 and 38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of Macadaan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0209339).
Regarding claims 26 and 36, Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21 and 31).
However, Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. are silent as to wherein the personalized image is personalized based on matching a first metadata associated with the first profile to a second metadata associated with the personalized image.
Macadaan et al. discloses wherein the personalized image is personalized based on matching a first metadata associated with the first profile to a second metadata associated with the personalized image (see paragraphs 0050-0051, 0075-0077).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. with the teachings of Macadaan et al., the motivation being to permit image selection using multiple interests rather than a single favorite-person criterion.
Regarding claims 27 and 37, Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21 and 31).
However, Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. are silent as to wherein the personalized image is personalized based at least in part on demographic data associated with the first profile.
Macadaan et al. discloses wherein the personalized image is personalized based at least in part on demographic data associated with the first profile (see paragraph 0045).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. with the teachings of Macadaan et al., the motivation being to provide an additional personalization input when explicit individual preferences are incomplete.
Regarding claims 28 and 38, Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21 and 31).
However, Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. are silent as to wherein the personalized image is personalized based at least in part on group information associated with the first profile.
Macadaan et al. discloses wherein the personalized image is personalized based at least in part on group information associated with the first profile (see paragraphs 0081-0084).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Dubinko et al. and Inagaki et al. with the teachings of Macadaan et al., the motivation being to supplement individual preferences with interests the user adopts from an associated community.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goldthwaite (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0140995)
Moreau (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0075474)
Wiser (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0138907).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NNENNA NGOZI EKPO whose telephone number is (571)270-1663. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 10:00am - 6:30pm, TH-F 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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.
NNENNA EKPO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/NNENNA N EKPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 October 7, 2026.
