DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This office action is issued in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 1/21/2026. Claims 1-2,4-5,8-9,11,14-16,18-19,25-26,31-42,44-45 and 47-49 are pending in this Office Action.
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/26 with respect to claims rejection under 35 USC 101 and 103 have been considered and are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully traverses applicant’s arguments.
Applicant argues: “As aforementioned, Applicant's specification describes the claimed technique as an improvement in supplemental content selection. For example, Applicant's specification describes:
[T]he MDDS may deliver tags 111 for enabling the playback device 40 to
retrieve supplemental content that is selected for delivery to the
playback device 40 in real-time (or near real time). For example, tags
111 may be delivered to the playback device 40 for purpose of enabling the
playback device 40 to render supplemental content that is selected or
responsive to events of the live broadcast. Specification, at [0048] (emphasis added). Thus, one skilled in the art would recognize that the specification describes techniques that improve supplemental content selection by enabling the selection of supplemental content in real-time.”(Applicant’s arguments at page 11)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Par [0048] of the specification only mentions that the tags may be delivered to the playback device for the purpose of enabling playback device to render supplemental content. Nowhere in par [0048] or anywhere else in the specification discloses why enabling the playback device to render supplemental content is an improvement to the supplement content selection as applicant asserts, and therefore considered as an improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field per MPEP 2106.05(a). Even for the sake of argument that “enabling the playback device 40 to retrieve supplemental content that is selected for delivery to the playback device 40 in real-time (or near real time)” is somehow considered “improvements” per MPEP 2106.05(a), there is nothing in claim 1 that mentions anything related to “ real time or near real time” , let alone such real time or near real time retrieval of supplement content is considered improvements. Even adding the word/phrase “real time or near real time “ to the claim 1 is not considered an improvement to the supplemental content selection as applicant asserts because claim 1 as recited does not reflect such improvements. Instead, claim 1 only broadly recited the additional elements of receiving and sending steps that are simply data gathering steps and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities per MPEP 2106.05(g)). The mere data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II). Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 1 therefore is ineligible.
Applicant argues: “In particular, Wafta does not disclose that the advertisement tag comprises "location information associated with supplemental content that is to be selected for the time slot." Instead, Wafta's advertisement tag (which "defines an advertisement") appears to be associated with a pre-selected advertisement-not supplemental content that is yet to be selected. Because Wafta does not disclose the claimed "tag comprising location information associated with supplemental content that is to be selected for the time slot," Wafta necessarily does not disclose "sending the tag to the one or more output devices, wherein the location information in the tag is usable by the one or more output devices in a request for the supplemental content that is to be
selected for the time slot, and wherein the request comprises information associated with selection of the supplemental content," as claimed.(Applicant’s arguments at page 14)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Wafta par [0019], an advertisement may be embedded into the data that defines the image or video and in response to a request such as user click , the server may then communicate the advertisement to the user. Wafta par [0022] further discloses how the server selects the advertisement based on the selection request of the user:
“[0022] The image processing server 110 may also be configured to retrieve advertisements and/or other information related to a region of an image, video, and/or scene selected by a user 115. For example, a user 115 may click on a particular scene, text, or object in an image or video shown on a browser 117 that operates on a computer (not shown). Data that defines the selected image region may be communicated to the image processing server 110. For example, x and y coordinates that define the position where the user 115 clicked the display may be communicated by the browser 117. In some implementations, data that defines a selection box may also be communicated to the image processing server 110 from the browser 117. For example, the position and size of the selection box may be communicated to the image processing server 110. The image processing server 110 may be configured to analyze the selected image region and to select an advertisement or provide other information that is related to the content of the image region. For example, text within a user selection may be related to an advertisement. An object within the user selection may also be associated with an advertisement. The scene within which the user 115 made the selection may also be related to an advertisement. The image processing server 110 may select an advertisement associated with the user selection and communicate the advertisement to the user 115.”
As can be seen in Wafta par [0022], the server analyzes the selected image region and to select an advertisement . Clearly , the server only selects the advertisement after analyzing the selected image region, not pre-selected as applicant asserts and therefore Wafta teaches “a tag comprising location information associated with supplemental content that is to be selected for the time slot and wherein the location information in the tag is usable by one or more output devices in a request for the supplemental content that is to be selected for the time slot, and wherein the request comprises information associated with the selected of the supplemental content” as recited in claim 1.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to remaining claims are substantially encompassed in the argument above, therefore examiner responds with the same rationale as stated above.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the examiner maintains prior art and 101 abstract idea rejections .
Applicant amendment to claims 36-41 overcome the 101 non-statutory subject matter rejection . Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claims 1-2,4-5,8-9,11,14-16,18-19,25-26,31-42,44-45 and 47-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 15 and 36:
Step 1: Statutory Category ?: Yes. claim 1 recites a method (i.e., a “process”), claim 15 recites a device (i.e., a “machine”), claim 36 recites a computer readable medium (i.e., an article of manufacture) and which are statutory categories.
Claim 1:
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
The limitation “determining, based on the indication and information associated with the portion of the content, a tag comprising location information associated with supplemental content that is to be selected for the time slot” is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion .
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 1 recites additional element of “receiving an indication of output, via one or more output devices, of a portion of content, wherein the portion of content is associated with a time slot of a plurality of time slots of the content” and “sending the tag to the one or more output devices, wherein the location information in the tag is usable by the one or more output devices in a request for the supplemental content that is to be selected for the time slot , and wherein the request comprises information associated with selection of the supplemental content” . The receiving and sending steps are simply data gathering steps and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional elements of “receiving an indication of output, via one or more output devices, of a portion of content, wherein the portion of content is associated with a time slot of a plurality of time slots of the content” and “sending the tag to the one or more output devices, wherein the location information in the tag is usable by the one or more output devices in a request for the supplemental content that is to be selected for the time slot , and wherein the request comprises information associated with selection of the supplemental content” are mere data gathering and is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II). Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 1 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites additional element of “wherein the tag comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) or an identifier of a third-party advertisement network” which is a mental process. Claim 8 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites additional element of “wherein the supplemental content is determined by the third-party advertisement network based on the at least one criterion” is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion . The additional element of “wherein the information in the request comprises at least one criterion” is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 4 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 5 recites additional element of “wherein the at least one criterion is associated with at least one of a user profile or a device profile” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 5 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 8 recites additional element of “wherein the information associated with the portion of the content comprises a content characteristic associated with the portion of the content” which is a mental process. Claim 8 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites additional element of “wherein the content characteristic associated with the portion of the content corresponds to at least one of a mood of the portion of the content, a theme of the portion of the content, or an event in the portion of the content” which is a mental process. Claim 9 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites additional element of “wherein the information associated with the portion of the content comprises a white list or a black list of sources for the supplemental content for the time slot” which is a mental process. Claim 9 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites additional element of “wherein the supplemental content is configured to be output concurrently as an overlay with the content within the time slot” which is a mental process. Claim 14 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Claim 15:
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
The limitation “determining, based on the indication and information associated with the portion of the content, a tag comprising location information associated with supplemental content that is to be selected for the time slot” is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion .
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 15 recites additional element of “receiving an indication of output, via one or more output devices, of a portion of content, wherein the portion of content is associated with a time slot of a plurality of time slots of the content” and “sending the tag to the one or more output devices, wherein the location information in the tag is usable by the one or more output devices in a request for the supplemental content that is to be selected for the time slot , and wherein the request comprises information associated with selection of the supplemental content” . The receiving and sending steps are simply data gathering steps and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of “one or more processors” and “memory storing instructions executed by the one or more processors” which are recited at the very high level of generality such that they amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional elements of “receiving an indication of output, via one or more output devices, of a portion of content, wherein the portion of content is associated with a time slot of a plurality of time slots of the content” and “sending the tag to the one or more output devices, wherein the location information in the tag is usable by the one or more output devices in a request for the supplemental content that is to be selected for the time slot , and wherein the request comprises information associated with selection of the supplemental content” are mere data gathering and is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. The memory and processors are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 15 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 16 recites the additional element of “wherein the tag comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) or an identifier of a third-party advertisement network” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 16 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 recites the additional element of “wherein the supplemental content is determined by the third-party advertisement network based on the at least one criterion” is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion . The additional element of “wherein the information in the request comprises at least one criterion” is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 4 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 19 recites the additional element of “wherein the at least one criterion is associated with at least one of a user profile or a device profile” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 19 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 25 recites the additional element of “comparing the information associated with the portion of the content to the target attribute” which is a mental process.
the additional element of “wherein the indication is indicative of a request comprising data that indicates a target attribute” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 25 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 26 recites the additional element of “wherein the target attribute and the information associated with the portion of the content comprise at least one of a content characteristic associated with the portion of the content, a theme associated with the portion of the content, a mood associated with the portion of the content, or an event associated with the portion of the content” which is a mental process. Claim 26 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 26 is not patent eligible.
Claim 31 recites the additional element of “determining a characteristic associated with a user of the one or more output devices, wherein determining the tag is further based on the characteristic associated with the user of the one or more output devices” which is a mental process. Claim 31 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 31 is not patent eligible.
Claim 32 recites the additional element of “wherein the characteristic associated with the user of the one or more output devices comprises a preference of the user” which is a mental process. Claim 32 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 32 is not patent eligible.
Claim 33 recites the additional element of “wherein the information associated with the portion of the content comprises a content characteristic associated with the portion of the content” which is a mental process. Claim 33 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 33 is not patent eligible.
Claim 34 recites the additional element of “wherein the information associated with the portion of the content comprises a white list or a black list of sources for the supplemental content for the time slot” which is a mental process. Claim 34 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 34 is not patent eligible.
Claim 35 recites the additional element of wherein the supplemental content is configured to be output concurrently as an overlay with the content within the time slot” which is a mental process. Claim 14 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 35 is not patent eligible.
Claim 36:
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
The limitation “determining, based on the indication and information associated with the portion of the content, a tag comprising location information associated with supplemental content that is to be selected for the time slot” is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion .
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 36 recites additional element of “receiving an indication of output, via one or more output devices, of a portion of content, wherein the portion of content is associated with a time slot of a plurality of time slots of the content” and “sending the tag to the one or more output devices, wherein the location information in the tag is usable by the one or more output devices in a request for the supplemental content that is to be selected for the time slot , and wherein the request comprises information associated with selection of the supplemental content” . The receiving and sending steps are simply data gathering steps and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of “computer readable medium” which is recited at the very high level of generality such that they amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component.
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 36 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional elements of “receiving an indication of output, via one or more output devices, of a portion of content, wherein the portion of content is associated with a time slot of a plurality of time slots of the content” and “sending the tag to the one or more output devices, wherein the location information in the tag is usable by the one or more output devices in a request for the supplemental content that is to be selected for the time slot , and wherein the request comprises information associated with selection of the supplemental content” are mere data gathering and is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. The computer readable medium is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 36 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 37 recites additional element of “wherein the tag comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) or an identifier of a third-party advertisement network” which is a mental process. Claim 37 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 37 is not patent eligible.
Claim 38 recites additional element of “wherein the supplemental content is determined by the third-party advertisement network based on the at least one criterion” is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion . The additional element of “wherein the information in the request comprises at least one criterion” is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 38 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 39 recites additional element of “wherein the at least one criterion is associated with at least one of a user profile or a device profile” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 39 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 40 recites additional element of “wherein the information associated with the portion of the content comprises a content characteristic associated with the portion of the content” which is a mental process. Claim 40 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 40 is not patent eligible.
Claim 41 recites additional element of “wherein the information associated with the portion of the content comprises a white list or a black list of sources for the supplemental content for the time slot” which is a mental process. Claim 41 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 41 is not patent eligible.
Claim 42 recites additional element of “wherein the supplemental content comprises interactive supplemental content” which is a mental process. Claim 42 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 42 is not patent eligible.
Claim 44 recites additional element of “wherein determining tag is further based on at least one of: a characteristic associated with of output of the supplemental content, a quantity of instances of output of the supplemental content, a frequency of instances of output of the supplemental content, a characteristic associated with the one or more output devices, a quantity of the one or more output devices, a geographic region associated with the one or more output devices, a computing platform associated with the one or more output devices, a transmission medium associated with the one or more output devices, a setting associated with the one or more output devices, rules associated with determination of the supplemental content, or weights associated with determination of the supplemental content” which is a mental process. Claim 44 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 44 is not patent eligible.
Claim 45 recites additional element of “wherein the supplemental content comprises an advertisement” which is a mental process. Claim 45 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 45 is not patent eligible.
Claim 47 recites additional element of “wherein receiving the indication comprises receiving the indication from a content source, wherein the indication is indicative of a request, to the content source from the one or more output devices, for the content” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 47 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 48 recites additional element of “receiving the indication from a content source, wherein the indication is indicative of a request, to the content source from the one or more output devices, for the content” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 48 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 49 recites additional element of “wherein receiving the indication comprises receiving the indication from a content source, wherein the indication is indicative of a request, to the content source from the one or more output devices, for the content” which is simply data gathering step and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 49 therefore is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-5,8-9,15-16,18-19,25-26,31-33,36-40,42,44-45 and 47-49 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by Hua et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2007/0204310 A1, hereinafter “Hua”) and further in view of Watfa et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2011/0178871 A1, hereinafter “Watfa”)
As to claim 1, Hua teaches a method comprising: receiving an indication of output , via one or more output devices of a portion of content, wherein the portion of content is associated with a time slot of a plurality of time slots of the content (Hua par [0036] teaches receiving request from user for source video) ; determining, based on the indication and information associated with the portion of the content, a tag comprising location information that indicates one or more locations of supplemental content for the time slot (Hua par [0036] teaches if there is a profile associated with the user, identify any ad-clips that are most contextually relevant to information in the profile) ; and sending the tag to one or more output devices.(Hua par [0036] teaches while communicating the source video to the user, automatically insert ad-clips that have been determined to be contextually and/or relevant to the user profile at any statically defined insertion points that are defined with respect to timeline corresponding to the source video. Hua par [0038] further teaches matching ad-clips based with source video segment using tags )
Hua teaches sending the video ad-clips using matching tag but fails to expressly teach a tag comprising location information associated with supplemental content that is to be selected for the time slot and wherein the location information in the tag is usable by one or more output devices in a request for the supplemental content that is to be selected for the time slot, and wherein the request comprises information associated with the selected of the supplemental content.
However, Watfa teaches a tag comprising location information associated with supplemental content that is to be selected for the time slot
and wherein the location information in the tag is usable by one or more output devices in a request for the supplemental content that is to be selected for the time slot, and wherein the request comprises information associated with the selected of the supplemental content.(Watfa par [0019] teaches data that defines an advertisement to be associated with the monetizable content may then be embedded into the data that defines the image or video. A request to retrieve an advertisement associated with an advertisement tag may be communicated to an advertisement server under various conditions).
Hua and Watfa are analogous art directed toward presenting supplemental content and both teachings operate the same as separately as in combination. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the time of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill would have combined the teaching of Hua and Watfa according to known methods to achieve the claimed invention and yield predictable results. One would have been motivated to make such combination to provide a greater return on investment for the advertiser.(Watfa par [0056])
As to claim 2, Hua and Watfa teach the method of claim 1, wherein the tag comprises providing a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) or an identifier of a third party advertisement network. (Hua par [0035 teaches URL links)
As to claim 4, Hua and Watfa teach the method of claim 2, wherein the tag comprises providing a criterion associated with the identifier, and wherein the supplemental content is determined by the third-party advertisement network based on the criterion (Hua par [0036] teaches ad-clips that are relevant to information in the profile)
As to claim 5, Hua and Watfa teach the method of claim 4, wherein the criterion based on is associated with at least one of a user profile or a device profile. (Hua par [0036] teaches ad-clips that are relevant to information in the profile)
As to claim 8, Hua and Watfa teach the method of claim 1, wherein the information associated the portion of the content comprises a content characteristic associated with the portion of the content. (Hua par [0018] teaches ad-clip that that is contextually relevant to a segment of source video will exhibit one or more of genre or semantic relevance, visual relevance, and/or object relevance to the segment)
As to claim 9, Hua and Watfa teach the method of claim 8 wherein the content characteristic corresponds to a mood or theme of the segment of the content or an event in the segment of the content. (Hua par [0018] teaches ad-clip that that is contextually relevant to a segment of source video will exhibit one or more of genre or semantic relevance, visual relevance, and/or object relevance to the segment)
Claims 15-16 and 18-19 merely recite a device to perform the method of claims 1-2 and 4-5. Accordingly, Hua and Watfa teach every limitation of claims 15-16 and 18-19 as indicates in the above rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-5 respectively.
As to claim 25, Hua and Watfa teach the method of claim 1, wherein the indication is indicative of a request comprising data that indicates a target attribute; and comparing the information associated with the portion of the content to the target attribute. (Hua par [0020] teaches to identify one or more video matching ad-clips to insert, the video ad platform analyzes the source video content and available ad-clip(s) to identify and extract metadata that indicates one or more of genre, semantics, visual features , object feature, etc.)
As to claim 26, Hua and Watfa teach method of claim 25, wherein the target attribute and the information associated with the portion of the content comprise at least one of a content characteristic associated with the portion of the content, a theme associated with the portion, a mood associated with the portion, or an event associated with the portion of the content. (Hua par [0020] teaches to identify one or more video matching ad-clips to insert, the video ad platform analyzes the source video content and available ad-clip(s) to identify and extract metadata that indicates one or more of genre, semantics, visual features , object feature, etc.)
As to claim 31, Hua and Watfa teach the method of claim 1, further comprising a characteristic associated with a user of the one or more output devices wherein determining tag is further based on the characteristic associated with the user of the one or more output devices. (Hua par [0036] teaches ad-clips that are relevant to information in the profile)
As to claim 32, Hua and Watfa teach the method of claim 31, wherein the characteristic associated with the user of the one or more output devices comprises a preference of the user.(Hua par [0019] teaches a user profile indicates that a viewer is interested in automobiles))
As to claim 33, Hua and Watfa teach the device of claim 15, wherein the information associated with the portion of the content comprises a content characteristic of associated with the portion of the content.(Hua par [0018] teaches ad-clip that that is contextually relevant to a segment of source video will exhibit one or more of genre or semantic relevance, visual relevance, and/or object relevance to the segment)
Claims 36-37, 38-39 and 40 merely recite a computer readable medium storing instruction when executed by a processor performing the method of claims 1-2, 4-5 and 8 respectively. Accordingly, Hua and Watfa teach every limitation of claims 36-37, 38-39 and 40 as indicates in the above rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5 and 8 respectively.
As to claim 42, Hua and Watfa teach the method of claim 1, wherein the supplemental content comprises interactive supplemental content. (Hua par [0035] teaches one or more candidate ad-clips include embedded URL links for a viewer to select/click through to a corresponding website )
As to claim 44, Hua and Watfa teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining the supplemental content is further based on at least one:
a characteristic associated with of output of the supplemental content,( Hua par [0018] teaches ad-clip that that is contextually relevant to a segment of source video will exhibit one or more of genre or semantic relevance, visual relevance, and/or object relevance to the segment)
a quantity of instances of output of the supplemental content,
a frequency of instances of output of the supplemental content,
a characteristic associated with the one or more output devices,
a quantity of the one or more output devices,
a geographic region associated with the one or more output devices,
a computing platform associated with the one or more output devices,
a transmission medium associated with the one or more output devices,
a setting associated with the one or more output devices,
rules associated with determination of the supplemental content, or
weights associated with determination of the supplemental content.
As to claim 45, Hua and Watfa teach the method of claim 1, wherein the supplemental content comprises an advertisement. (Hua par [0017] teaches video ad platform inserts ad-clip(s) that are contextually relevant to a segment adjacent to a corresponding insertion point)
As to claim 47, Hua and Watfa teach the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the indication comprises receiving the indication from a content source, wherein the indication is indicative of a request, to the content source from the one or more output devices, for the content.(Hua par [0036] teaches receiving a request form a user for the source video)
As to claim 48-49 , see the above rejection of claim 47.
Claim 11 , 34 and 41 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hua , Watfa and further in view of Dekel et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2008/0249853 A1, hereinafter “Dekel”)
As to claim 11, Hua and Watfa teach the method of claim 1 but fail to teach wherein the information comprises a white list or a black list of advertisement sources for the supplemental content.
However, Dekel teaches wherein the information comprises a white list or a black list of advertisement sources for the supplemental content. (Dekel par [0031] teaches white list and black list)
Hua, Watfa and Dekel are analogous art directed toward managing the delivery of advertisement and both teachings operate the same as separately as in combination. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the time of the claimed invention was made, one of ordinary skill could have combined the set of attributes as taught by Hua, Watfa with the white list and black list as taught by Dekel according to known methods to arrive at the claimed invention and yield predictable results. One would have been motivated to make such combination to provide the benefit of conducting a successful online advertising campaign. (Dekel par [0030])
As to claims 34 and 41, see the above rejection of claim 11.
Claims 14 and 35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hua, Watfa and further in view of van de Klashorst. ( US Patent Application Publication 2009/0328113 A1, hereinafter “Klashorst”)
As to claim 14, Hua and Watfa teach the method of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the supplemental content is configured to be outputted concurrently as an overlay with the content within the time slot.
However, Klashorst teaches wherein the supplemental content is configured to be outputted concurrently as an overlay with the content within the time slot. (Klashorst par [0047] teaches advertisement overlaid on an upper right quadrant of a video)
Hua, Watfa and Klashorst are analogous art directed toward presenting supplemental content and both teachings operate the same as separately as in combination. Since the teachings were analogous art known before the effective filing date of claimed invention, one of ordinary skill would have combined the teaching of Hua, Watfa and Klashorst according to known methods to achieve the claimed invention and yield predictable results. One would have been motivated to make such combination to allow user to allow user to have immediate access to the supplemental content.
As to claim 35, see the above rejection of claim 14.
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 HIEN DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at 571-270-5871. 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.
/HIEN L DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147
Prosecution Insights