DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is responsive to the following communication: Remarks filed on March 2, 2026 (in response to Non-Final Rejection mailed on December 2, 2025). Claims 1-6, 9-23, 25-27, and 30-33 are pending in the case; Claims 1, 14, and 20 are independent claims; no claim amendments were made in the reply filed on March 2, 2026. This action is made final.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 2, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on December 2, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to § 103 rejections, see Remarks filed on March 2, 2026 (hereinafter Remarks) (see pgs. 8-11), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sheehan does not teach or suggest “retrieving, based on output of the content and the information, the plurality of supplemental content items via the plurality of content resources“ (see Remarks, pg. 9). First, it is noted that the applicant appears to argue for a particular interpretation of “based on output of the content,” but it is not clear what such desired interpretation is and how it is supported by the recited limitations. Sheehan teaches that information is received with content stream which describes the content in order to allow for appropriate asset to be selected by subsequent network platforms/users (see col. 18, lines 25-52). Applicant appears to interpret Sheehan differently and concludes that “because the network platform inserts the national assets in the content stream before the content stream is ever transmitted to and/or output by the CPE, any retrieval of the national assets by the network platform is necessarily not based on output of the content” (see Remarks, pg. 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees with this conclusion because Sheehan teaches that unlike in conventional scheduling of non-national assets, a network platform can dynamically determine which assets to insert based on gathered information (see col. 16, lines 1-28; see also discussion of § 103 rejection, below; compare with col. 12, lines 20-36, describing conventional scheduling), and a skilled artisan would understand that content of the stream information would correspond to audience composition and guide the network platform to select appropriate assets, as suggested by Sheehan.
Applicant also argues that Sheehan does not teach or suggest “causing output of each of the plurality of supplemental content items during the corresponding insertion opportunity, wherein output of the plurality of supplemental content items is synchronized with the content based on a supplemental timeline“ (see Remarks, pg. 9). Again, applicant appears to argue for a particular interpretation of “based on a supplemental timeline,” but it is not clear what such desired interpretation is (and how it is different from the teachings of Sheehan) and how such interpretation is supported by the recited limitations. Sheehan teaches breaks are scheduled in programming content and that defined avail windows establish the time period during which certain breaks or spots occur, thus providing for local insertion opportunities, and further teaches that a break can include a series of asset delivery spots, and conventionally the asset delivery has been scheduled according to a timed playlist (see col. 12, lines 5-36). In addition, Sheehan teaches that local asset delivery spots can be used for replacement of local/regional assets, but it order for this to be feasible, an indication of start/finish times for such spots has to be provided in order to ensure that the inserted asset is properly inserted (i.e., at the right time) and properly outputted (i.e., the correct duration), thus reading on “supplemental timeline” of Claim 1, as further discussed in § 103 rejection, below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1-6, 9, 12-23, 25-27, and 30-33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sheehan et al. (hereinafter Sheehan), US 8,776,115 B2, issued on July 8, 2014 (PGPub published on February 11, 2010).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Sheehan teaches a method comprising:
receiving an indication of a plurality of content resources associated with a plurality of supplemental content items associated with content, and receiving information for retrieving the plurality of supplemental content items, wherein each of the plurality of supplemental content items corresponds to an insertion opportunity between break points in the content (see col. 16, lines 1-28, showing that a plurality of assets (i.e., supplemental content items, such as advertisements, to be played during breaks in the content stream) can be provided to network platforms in various manners (i.e., forward-and-store, synchronously transmitted, etc.) in order to allow for a dynamically selected asset to play during a break in content programming; see also col. 16, line 63 – col. 17, line 10, showing an asset database that is provided in correspondence to the content stream; see also col. 21, lines 14-35, illustrating asset insertion instructions that are provided to the network platforms in addition to the content programming and corresponding assets).
retrieving, based on output of the content and the information, the plurality of supplemental content items via the plurality of content resources (see col. 16, lines 1-28, showing that corresponding assets can be retrieved in a variety of ways; see also col. 18, lines 25-52, showing retrieval of an appropriate asset for a particular point in the content stream).
causing output of each of the plurality of supplemental content items during the corresponding insertion opportunity in the content, wherein output of the plurality of supplemental content items is synchronized with the content based on a supplemental timeline (see col. 12, lines 23-36, col. 15, lines 19-65, showing that assets may be selected and outputted during particular times (i.e., a supplemental timeline) thus allowing a desired asset to be played for a particular audience or region).
Sheehan does not appear to explicitly use the term “a supplemental timeline,” but it makes it clear that assets (i.e., advertisements) are selected and inserted to be played in particular slots that can be pre-scheduled or indicated by appropriate cues, which appears to at least read on “supplemental timeline” as recited in the claim. A skilled artisan would understand that the assets being inserted are timed so that they are displayed in their allotted time (whether it is an alternative/targeted asset or a regional/local asset) in the intended manner (see col. 11, lines 12-21 and 49-59, col. 12, lines 5-36, col. 13, lines 20-36, col. 15, lines 39-65).
With respect to dependent Claim 2, Sheehan teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein receiving the indication comprises receiving the indication based on initiating output of the content (see col. 16, lines 10-21).
With respect to dependent Claim 3, Sheehan teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein receiving the indication comprises receiving the indication based on initiating output of the content by one of multiple content sources (see col. 9, line 57 – col. 10, line 4; see also col. 16, lines 1-28; see also col. 18, lines 25-52).
With respect to dependent Claim 4, Sheehan teaches the method of claim 3, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the multiple content sources comprise at least one of a broadcast content source, a cable content source, or a streaming content source (see col. 8, lines 11-36).
With respect to dependent Claim 5, Sheehan teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein receiving the information comprises receiving a plurality of tags, retrieving the plurality of supplemental content items via the plurality of content resources comprises using a plurality of links indicated in the plurality of tags to retrieve the plurality of supplemental content items via one or more advertisement networks or sites (see col. 10, lines 62-65, discussing assets such as ad tags which can be inserted into the content stream).
With respect to dependent Claim 6, Sheehan teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein retrieving the plurality of supplemental content items is performed prior to an available insertion opportunity between break points in the content (see col. 16, lines 1-9).
With respect to dependent Claim 9, Sheehan teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests indicating a start time of output of the content (see col. 11, line 61 – col. 12, line 22).
With respect to dependent Claim 12, Sheehan teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein causing output of the plurality of supplemental content items comprises determining a broadcast schedule for the content and using the broadcast schedule to synchronize output of the plurality of supplemental content items (see col. 11, line 61 – col. 12, line 36).
With respect to dependent Claim 13, Sheehan teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein causing output of the plurality of supplemental content items comprises overlaying the plurality of supplemental content items relative to the content (see col. 10, lines 61-67, showing various assets that can be displayed, including static graphic overlays, superimposed banners, etc.).
With respect to dependent Claim 21, Sheehan teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the plurality of supplemental content items comprise advertisements (see col. 10, lines 61-67, discussing conventional advertisements).
With respect to dependent Claim 26, Sheehan teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the plurality of supplemental content items comprise interactive supplemental content (see col. 10, lines 61-67, discussing various asset types, including ad tags, banners, and other advertising mechanisms).
With respect to dependent Claim 27, Sheehan teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the information comprises metadata (see col. 18, lines 25-34).
With respect to dependent Claim 30, Sheehan teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein each of the plurality of supplemental content items is determined based on at least … rules associated with determination of the supplemental content item (see col. 18, lines 35-52, col. 20, lines 56-67, col, 21, lines 20-35).
With respect to dependent Claim 31, Sheehan teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the information, for retrieving the plurality of supplemental content items is associated with at least one of: advertising data from an advertiser associated with the plurality of supplemental content items, campaign data from an advertiser associated with the plurality of supplemental content items, data associated with an advertiser request, or data configured by an advertiser (see col. 10, lines 61-67, discussing various asset types and mechanisms; see col. 21, lines 14-35, discussing asset insertion instructions).
With respect to Claims 14-20, 22, 23, 25, 32, and 33, these claims are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and a computing device comprising steps and/or features corresponding to those recited in Claims 1-6, 13, and 31, respectively, and are thus reject along the same rationale as those claims, above.
5. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sheehan in view of Neumeier et al. (hereinafter Neumeier), US 2010/0306808 A1, published on December 2, 2010.
With respect to dependent Claim 11, Sheehan teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the content comprises video (see col. 9, lines 11-29). Sheehan does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein causing output of the plurality of supplemental content items comprises performing image recognition to determine a visual marker in the video to synchronize the output of the plurality of supplemental content items, but the teaching of Neumeier can be relied upon for an explicit showing of this feature.
Neumeier is directed towards identifying video segments and displaying contextually targeted content on a television system (see Neumeier, Abstract). Neumeier teaches “performing image recognition to determine a visual marker in the video” by using image recognition technique to identify the image in the primary content to provide targeted advertisement as a type of “synchronizing” the primary content and supplemental content (see Neumeier, ¶ 0010, showing identifying which video segment is being displayed on a screen of a television system; see ¶ 0025, showing that the widget can employ audio signature detection or image recognition software to identify the displayed images in the program stream; see ¶ 0034, showing a video feed of the program being watched (run through image recognition); see ¶¶ 0040-41, showing that the TV client 18 may receive the video stream and extract image data to be sent to the server 420, so that the channel recognition module 26 can identify the channel being viewed using image recognition software; see Fig. 10 and ¶¶ 0072-76, showing that the video image [after image recognition] plus time offset are used to search for the “location” of the TV program to identify the “location” to play the contextual advertisement; in ¶ 0076, once the most likely location in the database is identified, content stored in the database in association with that location can be retrieved by the contextual targeting module 64; thus, “performing image recognition to determine a visual marker in the video” is taught for the synchronized playback of the TV program and the contextual advertisement based on the timeline).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Sheehan and Neumeier before them at the time the invention was made, to modify the cues for asset insertion taught by Sheehan to accommodate the feature of using an image recognition technique to identify a time location in a TV program to play a contextual advertisement content by Neumeier in order to allow for a determination of relevant supplemental content in a live feed when such determination cannot be made in advance (see Neumeier, ¶¶ 0008-09).
With respect to dependent Claim 10, Sheehan teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the content comprises audio (see col. 9, lines 11-29). Although Sheehan suggests providing a cue tone to identify an insertion opportunity, Sheehan does not appear to explicitly recite wherein causing output of the plurality of supplemental content items comprises performing audio recognition to determine an audio marker in the audio to synchronize the output of the plurality of supplemental content items, but the teachings of Neumeier, under the same rationale provided for Claim 11, above, can be relied upon for an explicit teaching of this feature (see Neumeier, ¶¶ 0025, 0034, 0040-41, discussing audio signature detection; see also discussion of Claim 11, above).
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
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 extension fee 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 DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights