Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-24 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection discussed below.
With respect to Applicant’s argument regarding non-functional descriptive material regarding particular type of data such as “orientation”, “adjusted orientation”, “dimensions”, “visibility data” on page 8, Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive based on the reason as discussed on pages 7-8 of the final rejection according to MPEP 2111.05, 2112.02 (III) and the Board’s decision in, for example, in Appeal No. 2009-010851 for application no. 10/622,876, appeal No. 2011011929 for application No. 11709170.
Applicant maintains argument that that moving a hotpot around a screen (as taught by Markel), does not teach “orientation data” of a surface as claimed because “position” or “displacement” is not analogous to “orientation”, as claimed. That is, displacement or position, describes the location of a point in space relative to a reference. It is a vector quantity but does not inherently describe rotation or angular alignment. Orientation, on the other hand, defines how an object is rotated relative to a reference. Neither Tinsman nor Markel actively adjust an orientation of a surface of an object (pages 9-11). This argument is respectfully traversed.
MPEP 2111 states “claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification” and “reading a claim in light of the specification…is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitation which have no express basis in the claim.”
In this case, the claims do no recite orientation defines how an object is rotated relative to a reference or how the object is rotated. Instead, amended claim 1 merely recites “determining orientation data associated with the surface in the primary content”, “…wherein the primary content comprises the surface with an adjusted orientation based on adjusted orientation data, and wherein the secondary content is on the surface of the object”
According to https;//www.thefreedictionary.com (as already provided in the advisory action), definition of “orientation” comprises “the direction followed in the course of trend, movement, or development; location, placement, position, the act of putting something in a certain place, location, direction.
Tinsman, with its fully incorporated by references including Markel, discloses placement data/coordinate/contour data that control displacement, movement, rotation, trajectory, or orientation of hotspot/object/ad space displayed on different image/frame of primary content, wherein secondary content such as advertisement is on the hotspot or space of the ad object/ad hotspot (see include, but are not limited to, Tinsman: figures 11-12, 16-17, 22, 24-25, paragraphs 0054, 0064, 0141; Markel: figures 3A-3C, 6-7, paragraphs 0013-0016, 0033, 0043, 0055, 0060, 0062, 0083).
Thus, Tinsman, and its fully incorporated by references, discloses determining orientation data associated with the surface in the primary content” (read on determining orientation data such as coordinates, displacement, trajectory, movement, rotate, and/or orientation data associated with the ad space/hotspot in the primary content/video content), “wherein the primary content comprises the surface with an adjusted orientation based on adjusted orientation data, and wherein the secondary content is on the surface of the object” (read on primary/video content comprises the ad space/region for hotspot/object/ad with an adjusted/different orientation or displacement/movement/trajectory based on adjusted/different/changed data of orientation, displacement, coordination, rotation, etc. in the frames of video content, wherein the secondary content such as ad, label, ad information is on the surface/space of the object/ad).
Applicant further argues that “determining” and “adjusting” are conceptually distinct actions with different purposes and implication. If Tinsman determines a lighting parameter, Tinsman (or Markel) does not adjust the lighting parameter as previously claimed. Nonetheless, the independent claims in requestion have been amended to remove the “lighting parameter” (page 11).
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. However, since the “lighting parameter” has been removed from the independent claims, Examiner does not need to respond to the limitation.
Claim 1:
i. Applicant argues Tinsman does not teach “causing output of the primary content, wherein the primary content comprises the surface with an adjusted orientation based on adjusted orientation data, and wherein the secondary content is on the surface of the object” (page 13). This argument is respectfully traversed.
With respect to Applicant’s repeated argument that Office Action’s reliance on two references for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is improper (page 13). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Again, as pointed out on page 3 of the final rejection and in previous rejections, the office actions repeatedly provide reason why Markel is treated as part of the specification of Tinsman. Particularly, Markel is fully incorporated by reference in Tinsman, therefore, Markel or all documents that are directly or indirectly incorporated by references in their entireties (fully incorporated by references) are treated as part of the specification of Tinsman according, for example, MPEP 2163.07 b. See also Board decision issued 09/17/2020 for application No. 13681055 (appeal No. 2019-003781 -page 3), IPR2017-00950 (page 22) in Application No. 11/246,392 (The second document named "Trial Termination or Final Written Decision" issued on 09/19/2018.
Therefore, Tinsman with its fully incorporated by reference including Markel, is relied on to reject the claim under 35 U.S.C. 102 is proper since Markel is treated as part of the specification of Tinsman according to MPEP 2163.07 b.
Applicant further argues Tinsman teaches embedding ads on objects in the content, but does not teach, “causing output of the primary content, wherein the primary content comprises adjusted orientation data associated with the surface and wherein the secondary content is on the surface of the object,” as claimed (pages 14-15). This argument is respectfully traversed.
As discussed above and in previous office actions, Tinsman, with its fully incorporated by references including Markel, discloses causing the output/display of primary content (e.g., video content of a sport game, movie with frames to be displayed on a display), wherein the primary content comprises an adjusted orientation based on adjusted orientation data (adjusted/changed/different coordinates, displacement, contour data, etc. associated with the surface/space ad/hotspot) and wherein the secondary content is on the surface of the object (e.g., advertisement, text, label, logo, picture of advertisement is on the surface/space/hotpot for the advertisement) - see include, but are not limited to, Tinsman: figures 11-12, 16-17, 22, 24-25, paragraphs 0054, 0064, 0141; Markel: figures 3A-3C, 6-7, paragraphs 0013-0016, 0033, 0043, 0055, 0060, 0062, 0083 and discussion above and in previous office actions).
B.Claim 8:
Applicant submits Tinsman does not teach or suggest “causing output of the primary content wherein the primary content comprises an adjusted one or more dimensions associated with the at least one surface of the object, and wherein the primary content comprises the secondary content” because neither reference teaches “an adjusted one or more dimensions associated with the at least one surface of the object, and wherein the primary content comprises the secondary content.” (page 16). This argument is respectfully traversed.
For limitation that correspond to Applicant’s argument in claim 1, Examiner’s responses to the argument is similar to Examiner’s response in claim 1 above.
Tinsman (and its fully incorporated by references including Markel) discloses adjusting width, height, radius, size, etc. of the space/surface of the object/advertisement/hotspot (see include, but are not limited to, Tinsman: figures 11-12, 16-17, 24-25, paragraphs 0142-0143, Markel: figure 3A-3C, 7) and the primary content comprises secondary content such as text, logo, advertisement (see include, but are not limited to, Tinsman: figures 11-12, 16-17. 22, 24-25; Markel: figures 3A-3C, 7). Thus, Tinsman with its fully incorporated by references including Markel discloses all claimed limitations including “causing output of the primary content wherein the primary content comprises an adjusted one or more dimensions associated with the at least one surface of the object, and wherein the primary content comprises the secondary content” as recited in claim 8.
C. Claim 15
i. Applicant submits Tinsman does not teach “determining, by a visibility module of the computing device, based on visibility data associated with the at least one surface, that the at least one surface is a candidate for placement of secondary content” because Tinsman with Markel does not teach “visibility data” at all (pages 16-17). This argument is respectfully traversed.
Tinsman and its fully incorporated by references including Markel discloses determining, by a module/component of the computing device, based on data such as color key, graphical elements, intensity data, brightness data, coordinates, markers, tags, etc. associated with at least one surface/ad space, hotspot that the surface/blank space/hotspot in image for placement of secondary content such as text, logo, image of advertisement – see include, but are not limited to, figures 10-11, 16-17, 24-25, paragraphs 0054, 0064, 0065, 0085, 0122, 0124, 0170; Markel: paragraphs 0031, 0034-0035, 0037, 0058, 0059). Since the data such as color key, graphical elements, intensity data, brightness data, coordinates, marker, color data, etc. associated with the hotspot, ad space to be visible/highlighted/viewable/recognizable on the display/video image, the data is interpreted as “visibility data”. The blank space or hotspot space that is selectable for displaying advertisement is read on surface is a candidate for placement of secondary content.
Therefore, Tinsman with its fully incorporated by references including Markel discloses all limitations recited in claim 15 including “determining, by a visibility module of the computing device, based on visibility data associated with the at least one surface, that the at least one surface is a candidate for placement of secondary content”
For reason given above, rejection of claims 1-24 are sustained as discussed below.
Again, it is noted that non-functional descriptive material does not patentably distinguish over prior art that otherwise renders the claims unpatentable. See for example, MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2112.01(III). See also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Exparte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (discussing cases pertaining to non-functional descriptive material) see also BPAI’s decision in Appeal 2009-010851 (for Ser. No. 10/622,876) or BPAI’s decision in Appeal 2011-011929 (for Ser. No. 11/709,170), pages 6-7. In this case, a particular type of information such as “orientation”, “adjusted orientation”, lighting parameter”, “adjusted lightning parameter”, “dimension”, “adjusted dimension”, “visibility data”, “adjusted visibility data”… are considered as non-functional descriptive material and are not required to give patentable weight because these particular types of data do not functionally change the structure or operation of a system of type of data and the particular adjusted type of data to increase exposure of at least one surface. The limitations “orientation”, “adjusted orientation”, lighting parameter”, “adjusted lightning parameter”, “dimension”, “adjusted dimension”, “visibility data”, “adjusted visibility data” are only given patentable weight of types of data.
Although non-functional descriptive materials are not required to be considered, all claim limitations including non-functional descriptive material are known by prior art as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-21, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tinsman et al. (US 20130031582)
Note: all documents that are directly or indirectly incorporated by references in Tinsman in their entireties or fully (see for example, paragraphs 0001, 0044, 0071-0072, 0088, 0095, 0097, 0120, 0140, 0143, 0146, 0149) including US 20030149983 (hereinafter referred to as Markel) are treated as part as the specification of Tinsman (see for example, MPEP 2163.07 b).
Regarding claim 1, Tinsman discloses a method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, a surface of an object in primary content for placement of secondary content (determining, by a computing device, an embedded ad space/blank space/hotspot of an object in the content for placement of embedded ad content– see discussion in “response to arguments” above, and include, but are not limited to, para. 0090, 0099, 0116, 0137, figures 23-25, 37; Markel: paragraphs 0031, 0034-0035, 0037, 0058, 0059);
determining orientation data associated with the surface in the primary content (determining, contour data/coordinates, displacement data, orientation data associated with the surface/space/hotspot in the primary content/video content – see discussion in “response to arguments” and include, but are not limited to, Tinsman: figures 11-12, 16-17, 22, 24-25, paragraphs 0054, 0064, 0141; Markel: figures 3A-3C, 6-7, paragraphs 0013-0016, 0033, 0043, 0055, 0060, 0062, 0083); and
causing the output of primary content (e.g., causing the output of video content of a sport game, movie with frames to be displayed on a display), wherein the primary content comprises the surface with an adjusted orientation (primary content with video frames comprises surface/hotspot with adjusted/changed/different coordinates, displacement, orientation, location, movement, and/or trajectory, etc.) based on adjusted orientation data (different or changed position/coordinates, displacement data, rotation or orientation data for the surface/space ad/hotspot), and wherein the secondary content is on the surface of the object (e.g., advertisement, text, label, logo, picture of advertisement is on the surface/space/hotpot for the advertisement) - see discussion in “response to arguments” above, and include, but are not limited to, Tinsman: figures 11-12, 16-17, 22, 24-25, 37, paragraphs 0054, 0064,0106- 0107, 0111-0112, 0140-0141, 0160,0175,; Markel: figures 3A-3C, 6-7, paragraphs 0013-0016, 0031-0035, 0037, 0043, 0055, 0058, 0060, 0062, 0077, 0081-0084).
Regarding claim 3, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the surface is based on one or more dimensions of the secondary content (determining the surface/space/hotspot is based on one or more dimensions such as height, width, location, position, of the secondary content such as logo, text, advertisement– see include, but are not limited to, figures 6-7, 11-12, 23-25, 37, paragraphs 0099, 0175, 0140-0141; Markel: figures 3a-3C, 7, para. 0003, 0013-0016, 0031, 0034-0035, 0037, 0058, 0059).
Regarding claim 4, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the adjusted orientation data comprises adjusting at least one of: a position, a length, a width, a height, a depth, an area, a volume, a three-dimensional path, a motion, a weighting value, a mass parameter, an importance parameter, a time on screen or a lighting parameter associated with the surface (adjusting width, height, a time on screen, etc. associated with the ad space/surface – see figures 11-12, 23-25, paragraphs 0064, 0107, 0140-0141; Markel: figures 3C, 7, para. 0003, 0013-0016).
Regarding claim 5, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: selecting, based on the orientation data in the primary content associated with the surface, from a database of content, the secondary content, wherein the secondary content is configured for placement on the surface; and
causing the secondary content to be inserted into the primary content according to the orientation data (selecting, based on the orientation data, ad space/blank space data, coordinates, marker, tag, etc. in the primary content data associated with the surface such as blank, ad space/hotspot, from a database that stores content, the secondary content such as label, logo, advertisement, etc. for placement on the surface of blank/ad space/hotspot, and causing the secondary content to be inserted/embedded into the images of primary content according to the orientation data/coordinates/tags/marker data of the ad space/hotspot – see include, but are not limited to, figures 11-12, 21-25, 37, paragraphs 0099, 0106).
Regarding claim 6, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, based on the orientation data in the primary content associated with the surface, that the surface is a candidate for placement of the secondary content, and determining, based on the surface being a candidate for placement of the secondary content, at least one output parameter associated with the object (determining, based on the orientation data, tags, coordinates, etc. in the primary content associated with the surface/blank space, that the surface/blank space/hotspot is a candidate/location for placement of secondary content/embedded ad; and determining, based on the surface/blank space/hotspot being a candidate/location for placement of the secondary content/advertisement/logo, at least one output attribute/parameter associated with the object to display ad in ad space/blank space during output of the content of video/embedded ad content – see include, but are not limited to, figures 7-9, 21-25, 37, paragraphs 0099, 0121, 0160, 0175).
Regarding claim 7, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the primary content comprises at least one scene, the method further comprising:
based on the surface being a candidate for placement of secondary content, determining at least one output parameter associated with the at least one scene; and causing output of the at least one scene with an adjustment of at least one output parameter configured to increase exposure of the surface during output of the at least one scene (see include, but are not limited to, figures 11-17, paragraphs 0083-0084, 0090, 0107-0108, 0175 and discussed in “response to arguments” in the previous rejections).
Regarding claim 8, limitations that correspond to limitations of claim 1 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Particularly, Tinsman discloses the method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, based on one or more dimension associated with secondary content, at least one surface of an object in primary content (determining, by a computing device, based on one or more dimensions such as height, width of ad space, hotspot associated with secondary content/logo, advertisement, at least one surface/space ad/hotspot of an object in primary content - see include, but are not limited to, figures 7-9, 11-16, 22, 24-25; Markel: figures 3a-3c, 7 and discussion in “response to arguments” above);
causing output of the primary content, wherein the primary content comprises an adjusted one or more dimensions associated with the at least one surface of the object, and wherein the primary content comprises the secondary content (see discussion in “response to arguments” and include, but are not limited to, include, but are not limited to, discussion in “response in previous rejection, figures 11-17, 21-25, 37, paragraphs 0099, 0107-0108, 0121, 0142-0143, 0145, 0160-0161, 0175; Markel: figure 3A-3C, 7).
Regarding claim 9, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 8, wherein causing the primary content to be output comprises increasing exposure of the object during output (increasing exposure/displaying second object in the frame of primary content based on change of scene/frame during output– see include, but are not limited to, figures 8, 11-17, paragraphs 0107, 0145; Markel: figures 3a-3c, 7 and discussion in “response to arguments” in previous rejections).
Regarding claim 10, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: causing the secondary content to be inserted into the primary content (causing the logo/ad to be inserted into the primary content at ad space/hotspot – see include, but are not limited to, figures 18-25, 37, paragraphs 0099, 0159 and discussion in the rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 11, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the one or more dimensions associated with the at least one surface comprises at least one of: a position, an orientation, a length, a width, a height, a depth, an area, a volume, a flight path, a motion, a weighting value, a mass parameter, an importance parameter, or a lighting parameter to increase exposure of the object (see include, but are not limited to, figures 11-12, 23-25, paragraphs 0064, 0107, 0140-0141; Markel: figures 3C, 7, para. 0003, 0013-0016similar discussion in the rejection of claim 4).
Regarding claim 12, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: determining at least one output parameter associated with the at least one surface; and
Outputting the primary content, wherein the primary content comprises an adjustment of at least one output parameter associated with the at least one surface to increase exposure of the at least one surface (see include, but are not limited to, figures 11-17, paragraphs 0083-0084, 0090, 0107-0108, 0175 and discussion in the rejection claim 7).
Regarding claim 13, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 8 further comprising: determining at least one output parameter associated with a scene of the primary content; and outputting the primary content, wherein the primary content comprises an adjustment of at least one output parameter associated with the scene to increase exposure of the at least one surface during output of the scene (see include, but are not limited to, figures 7-17, 21-25, paragraphs 0083-0084, 0090, 0107-0108, 0145, 0175 and discussion in “response to arguments” in previous office actions).
Regarding claim 14, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the at least one output parameter associated with the scene comprises at least one of: a position, an orientation, a length, a width, a height, a depth, an area, a volume, a three dimensional path, a motion, a weighting value, a mass parameter, an importance parameter, an on screen time, or a lighting parameter (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 4).
Regarding claim 15, limitations that correspond to the limitations of claim 1 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Particularly, Tinsman discloses a method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, at least one surface of an object in at least one scene of primary content;
determining, by a visibility module of the computing device, based on visibility data associated with the at least one surface, that the at least one surface is a candidate for placement of secondary content (determining by a module/component of by a computing device, based on data, parameter/information for brightness, transparency, color, highlight, illumination, coordinates, etc. associated with a region, location, space/hotspot with the at least one space/hotspot/blank space for placement of advertisement, logo, etc. in the at least one scene/frame -see discussion in “response to arguments” above, discussion and include, but are not limited to, Tinsman: figures 7-11, 16-17, 23-25; Markel: figures 3a-3c, 7, paragraphs 0031, 0034-0035, 0037, 0058, 0059); and
causing output of the at least one scene of the primary content, wherein the at least one scene comprises adjusted visibility data configured to increase exposure of the at least one surface and the secondary content (causing output of the at least one scene comprises adjusted/changed/different visibility/recognizable/viewable data based on key color, highlight, brightness, transparency, coordinates, etc. configured to increase exposure/display of the at least one space/hotspot and embedded ad - see include, but are not limited to, figures 7-17, 21-25, 37 paragraphs 0054, 0064, 0083-0084, 0099, 0107-0108, 0145, 0175; 0065, 0085, 0122, 0170; Markel: paragraphs 0035, 0058 and discussion in the rejection of claim 1 and “in response to arguments” above).
Regarding claim 16, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the adjusted visibility data comprises an increased brightness (e.g., illumination, highlight, etc. see discussion in “response to arguments” and included, but are not limited to, figures 11-17, paragraphs 0170, 0176; Markel: paragraphs 0031, 0035, 0037, 0058).
Regarding claim 17, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: based on the at least one surface being the candidate for placement of the secondary content, determining at least one output parameter associated with the at least one surface; and causing output of the primary content, wherein the primary content comprises an adjustment of at least one output parameter associated with the at least one surface to maximize exposure of the at least one surface during output of the at least one scene (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 12; Tinsman: figures 7-8, 11-15; Markel: figures 3a-3c, 7).
Regarding claim 18, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: based on the at least one surface being the candidate for placement of the secondary content, determining at least one output parameter associated with the at least one object associated with the at least one surface; and causing output of the primary content, wherein the primary content comprises adjustment of at least one output parameter associated with at least one object to maximize exposure of the at least one surface during output of the at least one scene (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 6 and/or 8 and figures 7-8, 11-15, 21-25, 37, paragraphs 0099, 0107-0108, 0145, 0175, 0065, 0085, 0122, 0170; Markel: paragraphs 0035, 0058).
Regarding claim 19, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the adjusted visibility data comprises an increased brightness of the at least one surface (increased brightness with highlight or illumination, make the hotspot/advertisement viewable on screen (instead of ghosting or not viewable or not highlighted)- see discussion in “response to arguments” and include, but are not limited to, figures 21-25, 37, paragraphs 0064-0065, 0124, 0143, 0122, 0170; Markel: figures 1-3c, 7, paragraphs 0035, 0058).
Regarding claim 20, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the adjusted visibility data comprises an increased contrast associated with the at least one surface (increased brightness, differences, dissimilarity, highlight, etc. see include, but are not limited to, figures 21-25, 37, paragraphs 0064-0065, 0124, 0143, 0122, 0170; Markel: figures 1-3c, 7, paragraphs 0035, 0058).
Regarding claim 21, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the adjusted visibility data comprises at least one of: a position, an orientation, a length, a width, a depth, an area, a volume, a three dimensional path, a motion, a weighting value, a mass parameter, an on screen time, or an important parameter (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 4).
Regarding claim 23, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the adjusted at least one output parameter associated with the object comprises a brightness level associated with the at least one surface (replacement or adjusting color, set of colors, brightness of various colors, illuminations - see include, but are not limited to, Tinsman: paragraphs 0054, 0064, 0085, 0122, 0124, 0170, 0176; Markel: paragraphs 0037, 0058).
Regarding claim 24, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the adjusted visibility data associated with the at least one surface configured to increase exposure of the at least one surface comprises a decreased brightness of the at least one surface (decrease brightness, fade out, not highlighted or not viewable, ghosting, etc. - see include, but are not limited to, Tinsman: paragraphs 0054, 0064, 0085, 0122, 0124, 0170, 0176; Markel: paragraphs 0037, 0058) .
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 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 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinsman et al. (US 20130031582) as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Asbun et al. (US 20190191203) or He et al. (US 20160142747).
Regarding claim 2, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the orientation data comprises one or more dimensional coordinates, and wherein the adjusted orientation data comprises one or more adjusted dimensional coordinates configured to increase a surface area of the surface (dimensional coordinates with height, width, etc. and adjusted orientation data comprises adjusted coordinates configure to increase surface area to of ad space for display additional content or increase to next frame/scene to display embedded ad content– see include, but are limited to, figures 8, 11-12, 16-17, 37. Paragraphs 0121,0160, 0175, 0140-0141; Markel: figures 3C, 7, para. 0003, 0013-0016, 31-33).
Tinsman does not explicitly disclose the one or more coordinates comprises three dimensional coordinates.
Asbun or He (referred to as Asbun/He) discloses orientation data comprises one or more three dimensional coordinates, and wherein adjusted orientation data comprises one or more adjusted three dimensional coordinates configured to increase a surface area of the surface (3D or 360 degree coordinates and adjusting the 3D coordinates of the viewport/surface, and wherein the adjusted orientation data comprises adjusted/changed 3D coordinates configured to increase a surface/viewport area of the viewport/surface to display on different frames/images of video content – see include, but are not limited, Asbun: He: figures 8, 10, paragraphs 0041, 0053, 0065, 0082, 0097; Asbun: figures 1, 3, 8-13, 15-18, 26-27, paragraphs 0052-0053. 0073, 0102, 0116). 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 Tinsman with the teachings comprises three dimensional coordinates as taught by Asbun/He in order to yield predictable result of improving effectiveness of advertising into the video (see for example, He: paragraphs 0022, 0040).
Regarding claim 22, Tinsman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the adjusted orientation data of the surface comprises a change in one or more dimensional coordinates associated with the object (change in coordinates with width, height, positions, associated with the object/hotspots - see include, but are not limited to, Tinsman: figures 11-12, 21-25; Markel: figures 3A-3C, 7, paragraphs 0068, 0076—0077, 0081-0083).
Tinsman does not explicitly disclose change in one or more three dimensional coordinates.
Asbun or He (referred to as Asbun/He) discloses the adjusted orientation data of surface comprises a change in one or more three dimensional coordinates associated with the object (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 2 and include, but are not limited, Asbun: He: figures 8, 10, paragraphs 0041, 0053, 0065, 0082, 0097; Asbun: figures 1, 3, 8-13, 15-18, 26-27, paragraphs 0052-0053. 0073, 0102, 0116).
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 Tinsman with the teachings comprises three dimensional coordinates as taught by Asbun/He in order to yield predictable result of improving effectiveness of advertising into the video (see for example, He: paragraphs 0022, 0040).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Olsen et al. (US 10970930) discloses alignment and concurrent presentation of guide device video and enhancements (see figures 4A-4D, 6A-6B).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN SON PHI HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7295. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-6:30 pm.
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, NASSER M. GOODARZI can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/AN SON P HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
September 5, 2025