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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to application No. 17/584,226 filed on 10/02/2025. Claim(s) 1-22 is/are pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/08/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 11-16, 19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buffard et al. (US 2023/0325473) in view of Sanitate et al. (US 2010/0131993).
Consider claims 1 and 12, Buffard teaches a system and a method for use by a system including a computing platform having processing hardware and a system memory storing a software code, the system and method comprising: a computing platform including processing hardware and a system memory storing a software code; the processing hardware configured to execute the software code to (Fig.1, Paragraph 0051; Fig.14, Paragraph 0133-138, 0143-0144):
receive a request to perform a modification to a first content; determine, in response to the request and based on one or more replacement or removal instructions provided by one of a content owner, a content distributor, or a consumer independently of the first content, whether the modification is permissible or impermissible; when the modification is determined to be impermissible, deny the request (Paragraph 0027 teaches identity authority 115 receives identity registration information from the media content source system 105. Paragraph 0037 teaches role of identity authority 115 may be achieved through the use of a blockchain with nodes operated by large and reputable content owners, such as broadcasters, news corporations, or media corporations. Paragraph 0032 teaches media content modification system 130 may make authorized modifications by requesting from the identity authority 115, data provided by the media content source system 105 that indicates what types of modifications are permitted. Paragraph 0090-0097 teaches rules defined using a standardized format. Where different values indicates whether modifications are permitted or not to audio, language, text, etc. Paragraph 0119 teaches media content source system 105 transmits an identifier of the media content item, an identifier of an owner of the media content item, and zero or more authorizations for modification of the media content item to the identity authority 115. The identity authority 115 registers the transmitted information, allowing the content distribution network 305, or any of the systems of FIG. 1 to request the identifier of the owner and the authorizations for modification. Paragraph 0130 teaches a user interface suitable for notifying an editor that an attempted modification of a media content item is not permitted. In Fig.13, the informational area 1320 indicates that an attempted replacement of the audio track of a segment of the media content item is not permitted. Paragraph 0131 teaches media content modification system 130 determined which modifications to the media content item were permitted or forbidden by receiving rules from the identity authority 115 in response to a request. Paragraph 0132 teaches once the media content modification system 130 has the rules that apply to the media content item being modified, the media content modification software is enabled to refuse to perform unpermitted modifications);
when the modification is determined to be permissible: obtain the first content; obtain or produce a second content for use in modifying the first content per the request; and perform the modification to the first content, using the second content to provide a third content (Paragraph 0032 teaches media content modification system 130 may make authorized modifications by requesting from the identity authority 115, data provided by the media content source system 105 that indicates what types of modifications are permitted. Permission may be granted to cut media content. Paragraph 0034 teaches permissions may control modification of frame rate. Paragraph 0035 teaches media content modification system 130 makes authorized modifications. Where the modified media content is then provided to streaming platform 120, social network 124, the media content modification system 130, or the content access device 140. Paragraph 0090-0097 teaches rules defined using a standardized format. Where different values indicates whether modifications are permitted or not to audio, language, text, etc. Paragraph 0131 teaches media content modification system 130 determined which modifications to the media content item were permitted or forbidden by receiving rules from the identity authority 115 in response to a request. When modification is permissible as defined by the rules received, content is obtained, and modified with second content that is obtained or produced, to produce modified content containing the modifications).
Buffard does not explicitly teach in response to receiving the request, identify at least a portion of the first content to be modified, based on one of (i) playback of the first content, or (ii) an alternate content selected by one of an owner, a distributor or a consumer of the first content.
In an analogous art, Sanitate teaches in response to receiving a request, identify at least a portion of the first content to be modified, based on one of (i) playback of the first content, or (ii) an alternate content selected by one of an owner, a distributor or a consumer of the first content (Paragraph 0018-0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Buffard to include in response to receiving a request, identify at least a portion of the first content to be modified, based on one of (i) playback of the first content, or (ii) an alternate content selected by one of an owner, a distributor or a consumer of the first content, as taught by Sanitate, for the advantage of providing more detailed control over the editing of content, giving more precision and refinement in modification of content, to be disseminated to viewer(s).
Consider claims 2 and 13, Buffard and Sanitate teach wherein the modification to the first content modifies at least one of a subtitle, an audio component, or a video component of the first content (Buffard - Paragraph 0032, 0097).
Consider claims 3 and 14, Buffard teaches modification to the first content (Paragraph 0032, 0090-0097, 0131).
Sanitate further teaches wherein the modification to the first content removes, blocks, or replaces an expression included in the first content (Paragraph 0018, 0023-0024, 0026-0027, 0029, 0031-0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Buffard and Sanitate to include wherein modification to first content removes, blocks, or replaces an expression included in the first content, as further taught by Sanitate, for the advantage of avoiding the presentation of objectional/unwanted portions of content, while allowing the user/viewer to still consume the remaining content.
Consider claims 4 and 15, Buffard and Sanitate teach wherein the expression comprises at least one of text, speech, a gesture, a posture, or a facial expression (Sanitate - Paragraph 0018, 0023-0024, 0026-0027, 0029, 0031-0033).
Consider claims 5 and 16, Buffard teaches modification to the first content (Paragraph 0032, 0090-0097, 0131).
Sanitate further teaches modification removes, blocks, or replaces an image included in the first content (Paragraph 0018, 0024, 0026-0027, 0029, 0032-0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Buffard and Sanitate include modification removes, blocks, or replaces an image included in first content, as further taught by Sanitate, for the advantage of avoiding the presentation of objectional/unwanted portions of content, while allowing the user/viewer to still consume the remaining content.
Consider claims 8 and 19, Buffard and Sanitate teach wherein the system comprises a cloud-based system (Buffard - Fig.1, Paragraph 0052).
Consider claims 11 and 22, Buffard and Sanitate teach wherein the request is received from the content distributor (Buffard - Paragraph 0032, 0131, 0035), and the one or more replacement or removal instructions are provided by the content owner (Buffard - Paragraph 0027, 0037).
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buffard et al. (US 2023/0325473), in view of Sanitate et al. (US 2010/0131993), and further in view of Newell et al. (US 2017/0034596).
Consider claims 6 and 17, Buffard and Sanitate teach wherein the first content comprises audio-video (A/V) content and performing the modification to the first content comprises modifying a video component of the A/V content (Buffard - Paragraph 0032, 0090-0097, 0131; Sanitate – Paragraph 0018, 0024-0027, 0028-0030, 0032-0033), the system and the software code (Buffard - Fig.1, Paragraph 0051; Fig.14, Paragraph 0133-138, 0143-0144), but do not explicitly teach wherein it is implemented as a consumer device, and wherein the software code is an application stored on the consumer device.
In an analogous art Newell teaches system is implemented as a consumer device, and wherein the software code is an application stored on the consumer device (Paragraph 0026, 0030, 0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Buffard and Sanitate to include system is implemented as a consumer device, and wherein the software code is an application stored on the consumer device, as taught by Newell, for the advantage of providing implementation closer to the user end, allowing for quicker processing, and modification, without having to worry about network delays.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buffard et al. (US 2023/0325473), in view of Sanitate et al. (US 2010/0131993), in view of Newell et al. (US 2017/0034596), and further in view of Basso et al. (US 10,491,642).
Consider claims 7 and 18, Buffard, Sanitate, and Newell teach wherein performance of the modification to the first content occurs during processing of the first content (Buffard - Paragraph 0032, 0090-0097, 0131).
Newell further teaches processing of first content by the consumer device (Paragraph 0006 teaches media player or other receiver device obtains viewer preference data that describes viewer’s musical preference. Media receiver device compares the viewer preference data and metadata about the songs to select replacement songs that are rendered to the viewer during playback of the media program instead of the songs in the audio soundtrack of the media program. Paragraph 0045 teaches various embodiments may include “mandatory” flags 212 for one or more attributes, as desired. The mandatory flag may be set by the producer of program 150 or by another party to prevent replacement of certain songs, or to ensure that certain features of the song are preserved. Mandatory flags, may detail whether or not particular components of the media program {first content} may be replaced or not. If replacement is permitted, replacement song(s) {second content} is/are selected as the sounds for the audio sound track of the media program, thus forming a third content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Buffard, Sanitate, and Newell to include processing of first content by the consumer device, as taught by Newell, for the advantage of providing more local control and processing of content, alleviating network load, and avoiding any possible network delays in providing modified content.
Buffard, Sanitate, and Newell do not explicitly teach processing is transcoding.
In an analogous art, Basso teaches processing is transcoding (Col 16: line 40 – Col 17: line 3 teaches transcoding at the recipient device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Buffard, Sanitate, and Newell to include processing is transcoding, blocks, or replaces an expression included in the first content, as taught by Basso, for the advantage of allowing the receiver to adapt content as needed, in a cohesive manner, according to conditions/parameters that are more suitable for the receiver.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buffard et al. (US 2023/0325473), in view of Sanitate et al. (US 2010/0131993), and further in view of Otsuka (US 2022/0148133).
Consider claims 9 and 20, Buffard and Sanitate do not explicitly teach wherein the system memory further stores at least one trained machine learning (ML) model, and wherein the processing hardware is further configured to execute the software code to:
produce the second content using the at least one trained ML model.
In an analogous art, Otsuka teaches wherein system memory further stores at least one trained machine learning (ML) model, and wherein processing hardware is further configured to execute the software code to: produce the second content using the at least one trained ML model (Fig.1, Paragraph 0042-0044, 0048-0050 teaches software and processor(s) of the invention. Paragraph 0095, 0112, 0156, 0180 teaches a substitute image generation process using a substitute image generation model which is a machine learning model having been obtained by learning. Paragraph 0096 teaches a substitute image is outputted from the substitute image generation model).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Buffard and Sanitate to include wherein system memory further stores at least one trained machine learning (ML) model, and wherein processing hardware is further configured to execute the software code to: produce the second content using the at least one trained ML model, as taught by Otsuka, for the advantage of providing greater versatility and insight in providing secondary content that is better suited for the user, increasing relevance and enjoyability of content.
Claim(s) 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buffard et al. (US 2023/0325473), in view of Sanitate et al. (US 2010/0131993), and further in view of Ferrer (US 2017/0230454).
Consider claims 10 and 21, Buffard and Sanitate teach wherein the third content is provided when receiving the request (Buffard - Paragraph 0032-0035, 0131-0132), but do not explicitly teach content is provided within less than 10 seconds of receiving the request.
In an analogous art, Ferrer teaches content is provided within less than 10 seconds of receiving the request (Figs.16-17, Paragraph 0282-0284 teaches user selection of customizations to be inserted into a custom media track. Where after selection of customizations, user can then press the proceed button to proceed with customization of the custom media track. Fig.18, Paragraph 0285 teaches processing of the selected data is in real-time and quick, currently less than approximately ten seconds. Fig.19, Paragraph 0286-0287 teaches once processing is complete the customized content is provided for playback).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Buffard and Sanitate to include content is provided within less than 10 seconds of receiving the request, as taught by Ferrer, for the advantage of providing quick real-time processing (Ferrer – Paragraph 0285), so that the user would not have to wait too long, providing user(s) with a better and more responsive system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON K LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1446. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Brian Pendleton can be reached on 571-272-7527. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON K LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425