DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/06/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Good et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0215529) in view of Orlowski (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0379934).
Referring to claim 1, Good discloses a server device, comprising one or more processors, wherein at least one processor of the one or more processors (see Paragraphs 0017-0018) executes processing of:
receiving, from each of a plurality of terminals which are playing a distributed live video, a piece of access information sent in response to an operation on one of a plurality of objects respectively associated with a plurality of products presented in the live video (see Paragraph 0024);
collecting video identification information identifying the live video, product identification information identifying a product associated with the operated object, and time information indicating a playback time of the live video at the time of operation being performed on the object, the video identification information, the product identification information, and the time information being included in each of the received pieces of access information (see step 710 in Figure 7 and Paragraph 0067 for identifying a timestamp from the played video episode indicating the frame of the video and coordinates in the frame where feedback was provided which identifies the item selected and accessing a database to identify the saleable items);
and estimating, based on the collected video identification information, product identification information, and time information, that the plurality of products was presented in the live video (see Paragraph 0067 for using this information to determine the items selected by the users).
Good fails to teach estimating the time period during which each of the plurality of products was presented.
Orlowski discloses estimating the time period during which each of the plurality of products was presented (see Claim 1 and Paragraphs 0324-0361).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the user activity tracking shopping system, as taught by Good, using the time period estimation functionality, as taught by Orlowski, for the purpose of providing detailed information on customer viewing behavior which can be used to drive business decisions for service providers, advertisers, and content producers (see Abstract).
Referring to claim 2, Orlowski also discloses that, in the estimation of each time period, the server device aggregates the pieces of access information including the same video identification information and the same product identification information into a same group (see Paragraph 0172 and 0324-325 for collecting data on accessing video and ads within those videos during multiple reach periods, wherein Paragraph 0215 notes that the analysis includes mapping two channels to a single channel where the content is the same) and estimates, based on a distribution of numbers of accesses with respect to the playback times calculated for each of the aggregated groups, the time period corresponding to each of the plurality of products (see Paragraphs 0172, Paragraphs 0324-0361, 0370-0371, 0383, 0388 and 0535 for calculating video periods across multiple time segments for each advertisement in the video content, tracking viewing time periods across multiple channels and creating multiple files corresponding to multiple tracked time periods). The Examiner further notes Paragraphs 0446-0450 for an additional example of tracking viewing activity during multiple time periods viewing multiple channels with video content.
Referring to claim 4, Orlowski also discloses setting, based on each of the estimated time periods, one or more chapters to divide the live video into segments (see Paragraphs 0446-0450).
Referring to claim 5, Good and Orlowski discloses all of the limitations of claim 5, but fail to teach that in the setting of the one or more chapters, the server device generates, for each of the chapters, chapter information associated with a character string related to a corresponding product.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that a server can generate chapter information using a character string to label advertisements during a viewing period.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the user activity tracking shopping system, as taught by Good and Orlowski, using the chapter labeling functionality, as taught by Orlowski, for the purpose of allowing a system to track advertisements and provide information identifying each advertisement viewed.
Referring to claims 6-7, see the rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON P SALCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7301. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am-10:00pm M-F (Flex Schedule).
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/Jason Salce/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Jason P Salce
Senior Examiner
Art Unit 2421
January 12, 2026