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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-16, 18-20, 51-53 have been considered but are moot as discussed in new ground of rejection below.
Applicant argues the added limitations can be found in paragraph [0007] of the specification. For example, paragraph [0007] discloses that “the information may be presented the first time the object is displayed, and an indication that information has already been displayed for that object may be stored. As objects are identified in the media stream, they can be compared with the stored indications to determine if information has already been displayed for any of the identified objects. Information will be displayed objects for which no information has yet been displayed.” Then, “Applicant asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine that a first portion of a video stream would have a first timestamp and that refraining from providing information related to an object at a second portion of a video stream would suggest refraining from providing information related to a second portion of a video stream would suggest refraining from providing information related to the object at a second timestamp of the video stream in light of the present disclosure. For example, given that paragraph [0007] discloses that “information will only be displayed objects for which no information has yet been displayed,” it would be reasonable for one having skill in the art to implement the claimed subject matter (pages 8-9). This argument is respectfully traversed.
It is noted that the phrase “Information will only be displayed objects for which no information has yet been displayed,” described in paragraph [0007] is unclear and/or not understandable. It does not disclose information will only be displayed for objects which no information has yet been displayed.
Even paragraph [0007] describes information will only be displayed for objects which no information has been displayed, the specification does not describe determining whether the additional information related to the object was during an earlier portion of the video of the video stream being played at the device….”
It is also noted that even paragraph [0054] describes ‘the metadata describing an identified object may include an identifier of the object, a playback position within the media stream at which the object appears, coordinate at which the object is depicted in one or more video frames of the media stream, a URL or other pointe to additional information related to the object, etc.”, the “additional information related to the object” described in this paragraph could be for subsequent portion but does not necessarily “related to the object was during an earlier portion of the video stream being displayed….”.
Therefore, it would be not a reasonable for one having skill in the art to implement the claimed subject matter based on the description in paragraph [0007] or entire specification. In fact, paragraph [0007] or the entire specification does not have support for claimed limitation ““an object in a first portion, wherein the first portion corresponds to a first timestamp within the video stream; determining whether information related to the object was, during an earlier portion of the video stream being played at the device, provided to the device, wherein the earlier portion corresponds to a timestamp that occurred prior to the first timestamp and wherein the object was identified, using the one or more selected classification model, in the earlier portion; based at least in part on determining that the information related to the object was not provided to the device during playing of the earlier portion of the video stream: providing the information related to the object to the device during the first portion of the video stream; and causing display of the information related to the object during playing of the first portion of the video stream; and based at least in part on determining that the information related to the object was provided to the device during playing of the earlier portion of the video stream, refraining from causing display of the information related to the object during the playing of the first portion of the video stream” as recited in at least amended claims 1, 11.
Applicant further argues Gupta teach that the different portions of the same information may be displayed at different times to a user. In contrast, Applicant’s claims recite determining whether information about an object has already been displayed, and, if so, refraining entirely from displaying the information again, not merely refraining from displaying a portion of the information. Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the combination of Gupta and Yang fails to render the claimed subject matter as obvious because Yang does not explicitly disclose “refraining from causing display of any additional information related to the object during the playing of the second portion of the video stream,” the Office Action relies on Gupta for this subject matter. Gupta discloses showing different aspect of the same content item more than once (pages 10-11)” This argument is respectfully traversed.
Firstly, it is unclear whether limitation “refraining from causing display of the information related to the object during the playing of the first portion of the video stream” means information related to the object that was playing during the first portion is refrained from displaying during the second portion of video stream or information related to the object is refrained from displaying during the playing of the first portion of the video stream.
Secondly, the amended claim does not recite “determining whether information about an object has already been displayed, and if so, refraining entirety from displaying the information again, not refraining from displaying a portion of the information. Instead, amended claim 1 (also claim 11) recites “based at least in part on determining that the information related to the object was provided to the device during displaying of the earlier portion of the video stream, refraining from causing display of the information related to the object during the playing of the first portion of the video stream”.
Thirdly, as discussed in the previous office action, “an object” recited in the claims is interpreted as an item/object in a portion of video and/or advertisement (an object is not entire advertisement). For example, an object associated with a first portion/earlier portion is read on information for item/object during the playing of the first portion of the video stream with advertisement that is already displayed/played (e.g., item/object in advertisement 302 in the first 7 seconds of 30 seconds advertisement (0:07/0:30) as shown in figures 3, 5 or any portion that is already viewed/displayed) is refrained (not display again) from causing display as shown in, for example, figure 6, paragraphs 0020-0022, 0031, 0041).
Yang and/or Gupta discloses an object in a first portion of the video stream, wherein the first portion corresponds to a first timestamp within the video stream” is read on an item/object in a first frame/portion of the video stream and/or advertisement, wherein the first portion corresponds to a first stamp within the video stream/first portion of advertisement – see include, but are not limited to, Yang: figures 3-7; Gupta: figures 3-7, paragraphs 0023, 0044). Gupta further discloses after video content including information of object/item in first portion of advertisement is displayed, information of object before the skipped time is stored. When advertisement is selected again, the system will determine skipped time and will display only object in video segment/advertisement portion that has not been displayed (i.e., information of advertisement from skipped time with the portion that has not been viewed/displayed) and not displaying information related to object that is displayed during the first portion of the video, the first portion with the information that has already provided and displayed at the device. For example, if information of object and/or object in the first portion of the advertisement that was playing during first segment of advertisement is already displayed (before skipped time), then the information of object/item (e.g., bed, athlete’s feet, etc.) in the already displayed portion is no longer displayed – see include, but are not limited to, Gupta: figures 3-7, paragraphs 0022, 0031, 0039, 0041, 0044, 0048).
Thus, the combination of references including Gupta discloses “determining whether information related to the object was, during an earlier portion of the video stream being played at a device, provided to the device…” (determining whether information related to item/object (bed, feet, etc.), during an earlier/first portion of the video stream being played/viewed at a device, provided/displayed to the device/screen);
“based at least in part on determining that the information related to the object was provided to the device during the playing of the earlier portion of the video stream, refraining from causing display of the information related to the object during the playing of the first portion of the video stream.” (based at least in part on determining that information related to the item/object was provided/displayed to the device/screen during the playing of first portion of the video stream and before skipped time, refraining from (not) causing display of the information related to the object in the first portion (e.g., information related to object/item in the first 7 seconds (or any time period) during the earlier portion of video stream/advertisement that already played before skipped time) during other portion of the video stream).
Thus, the combination of the references disclose all limitations of amended claims includes “determining whether additional information…. of the video stream” as recited in the amended claims 1, 11.
See also US 20140366065 (paragraphs 0128, 0130, figure 2), US 20140169679 (claim 9, paragraph 0293) for the teaching of refraining from causing displaying of information related to object during the playing of the first portion of the video stream.
For the reasons given above, rejections of claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18, 20, 52-56 are discussed below.
Claims 3, 9, 13, 17, 19, 21-51 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18, 20, 52-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite limitations ““an object in a first portion, wherein the first portion corresponds to a first timestamp within the video stream; determining whether information related to the object was, during an earlier portion of the video stream being played at the device, provided to the device, wherein the earlier portion corresponds to a timestamp that occurred prior to the first timestamp, and wherein the object was identified, using one or more selected classification models, in the earlier portion;
based at least in part on determining that the information related to the object was not provided to the device during playing of the earlier portion of the video stream, providing additional information related to the object to the device during the first portion of the video stream:
based at least in part on determining that the information related to the object was provided to the device during playing of the earlier of the video stream, refraining from causing display of the information related to the object during the playing of the first portion of the video stream”, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention (see discussion in “response to arguments” above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18, 20, 52-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 11 recite limitation “refraining from causing display of the information related to the object during the playing of the first portion of the video stream” is indefinite because the claim boundaries are unknown or unclear. It is not clear that the claimed limitation means information related to the object that was playing during the first portion is refrained from displaying during the second portion of video stream or information related to the object is refrained from displaying during the playing of the first portion of the video stream.
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 1, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 14,16, 18, 20, 52-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20220239988) in view of Alon et al. (US 20210383115) or Chaturvedi et al. (US 12380,484) and further in view of Gupta (20170195746) and/or Harada et al. (US 20140169679).
Regarding claim 11, Yang discloses a system for enabling user-specific real-time information services for identifiable objects in a video stream (enabling user-specific real time information services in live stream for identifiable objects such as baseball cap, picture frame, brown bear, etc. in a video stream/live video stream – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1, 5-8, 12), the system comprising:
input/output circuitry (circuitry for receiving content and/or user input and output content – see include, but are not limited figures 5-12, paragraphs 0032, 0042) ; and
control circuitry (processor – see include, but are not limited to, figure 1, 12, 13, para. 0194, 0196) configured to:
access, using the input/output circuitry, the video stream (accessing, using the input/output with camera/receiver, a media/live stream – see include, but are not limited to, figures 5-8, 12, paragraphs 0044, paragraphs 0196);
select one or more models (select one of models for image recognition – see include, but are not limited to, paragraphs 0084-0087, 0089-0091, 0094);
identify, using the one or more selected models, an object in a first portion of the video stream (recognizing, using the one or more selected models, an object/item such as a baseball hat, wall picture, brown bear, skipping rope, headphones, etc. in a first portion/frame of the video stream – see include, but are not limited to, figures 5-8, paragraphs 0084-0087, 0089-0091, 0100);
determine whether information related to the object was, during an earlier portion of the video stream being played at a device, provided to the device, wherein the earlier portion corresponds to a timestamp that occurred prior to the first timestamp and wherein the object was identified, using the one or more selected models, in the earlier portion (determine whether information of item/link related to the object was, during an earlier/previous portion of the video stream being played at a device, provided to the device, based on selected/viewed/requested information, wherein the previous/earlier portion correspond to a timestamp that occurred prior to the first/subsequent timestamp and wherein the object/item was identified, using the one or more selected model in the previous/earlier frame/program of the current frame/portion – see discussed in “response to arguments” in non-final rejection and include, but are not limited to, paragraphs 0064, 0081, 0089-0091, 0104, 0112-0115, 0145, figures 2-9); and
based at least in part on determining that the information related to the object during playing of the earlier portion of the video stream, providing the information related to the object to the device during playing of the first portion of the video stream (based at least in part on the determining that the information related to the object during playing of the earlier portion/previous frame/scene of the video stream; recommend or provide the information related to the object to the device during the first portion of the video stream – see include, but are not limited to, figures 2-9, paragraphs 0064, 0089-0091, 0100, 0104, 0112-0115, 0145); and
cause display of the information related to the object during displaying of the first portion of the video stream (cause display of information related to the item/object during playing of the first portion with frame of the video stream – see include, but are not limited to, figures 2-9, paragraphs 0052, 0089-0091);
based at least in part on determining that the information related to the object was provided to the device during playing of the earlier portion of the video stream to determine causing of display of the information related to the object during the playing of the first portion of the video stream (based at least in part of determining that the information related to the object/item was provided to the device during the playing of the earlier portion/scene/frame of video stream according to selections, historical transaction, etc. to determine a recommendation of the information related to the object/item that was displayed during the playing of the previous/first portion/frame of the video stream – see include, but are not limited to, figures 2-9, paragraphs 0064, 0089-0091, 0104, 0112-0115, 0145).
Yang discloses the image recognition model includes a classifier (see include, but are not limited to, paragraphs 0087, 0089-0090, 0097, 0123, 0155).
However, Yang does not explicitly disclose model is classification model, based at least in part on determining that the information related to object was not provided to the device during playing of the earlier portion of the video stream; based at least in part on determining that the information related to the object was provided to the device during playing of the earlier portion of the video stream, refrain from causing display of information related to the object during the playing of the first portion of the video stream.
Alon discloses selecting one or more classification models, and identifying, using the selected classification models, an object in portions, each corresponds to a different timestamp of video stream, wherein object is identified, using one or more selected classification models, in the earlier portion (see include, but are not limited to, Alon: paragraphs 0164, 0165, 0189, 0199, 0294, 0297, 0461).
Alternatively, Chaturvedi discloses control circuity configured to:
select one or more classification models;
identify, using the one or more selected classification models, an object in a first portion (e.g., first scene/segment) of the video stream, wherein the first portion corresponds to the first timestamp within the video stream;
determine whether information related to the object was, during an earlier portion of the video stream being played at a device, wherein the earlier portion corresponds to a timestamp that occurred prior to the first timestamp and wherein the object was identified, using the one or more selected classification model, in the earlier portion (based on information in the usage/viewing history);
cause display of the information related to the object during playing of the first portion of the video stream;
based at least in part on determining that the information related to the object was provided to the device during playing of the earlier portion of the stream, causing filter for displaying of the information related to the object during the playing of the first portion of the video stream (selecting information of the object for display or not displaying based on viewing history/selection of the object during playing of the first portion/segment/scene of the video) – see include, but are not limited to, Chaturvedi: figures 1-4, 7, col. 4, lines 15-40, col. 7, lines 16-42, col. 8, lines 4-55, col. 9, lines 24-27, col. 14, lines 11-25, col. 15, lines 25-35, col. 16, lines 15-31, col. 22, lines 12-30, col. 23, lines 35-64, col. 24, lines 1-27).
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 Yang with the teaching of claim term “classification model” as taught by Alon or Chaturvedi (hereinafter referred to as Alon/Chaturvedi) in order to yield predictable result of easily identifying object or scene-component or to classify components of an object– see include, but are not limited to, Alon: paragraphs 0294, 0355) or allowing viewer to easily learn more about various objects that appear in scene of video stream and providing a personalized recommendation based on content displayed in a video stream that is relevant to the taste of user – see for example, Chaturvedi: col. 1, lines 7-12, col. 2, lines 15-29).
Gupta also discloses control circuitry configured to:
identify, an object in a first portion of video stream, wherein the first portion corresponds to a first timestamp within the video stream (identify an object, item in first portion/segment of video stream/advertisement, wherein the first portion correspond to the first timestamp within the video stream/advertisement – see include, but are not limited to, Gupta: figures 3-7, paragraphs 0022, 0031, 0039, 0044, 0048 and discussion in “response to arguments” above);
determine whether information related to object was, during an earlier portion of the video stream being played at the device, provided to the device, wherein the earlier portion corresponds to a timestamp that occurred prior to the first timestamp and wherein the object was identified in the earlier portion; and
based at least in part on determining that the information related to the object was not provided to the device during playing of the earlier portion of the video stream (information related to object/item after skipped time or object/item associated with advertisement portion that has not been viewed/displayed during playing of the earlier portion of video stream), provide the information related to the object to the device during the first portion of the video stream;
cause display of information related to the object during playing of the first portion of the video stream;
based at least in part on determining that the information related to the object was provided to the device during playing of the earlier portion of the video stream, refrain from (not) causing display of the information related to the object during the playing of the first portion of the video stream (based at least in part on determining that the information related to the object/item of advertisement was provided to the device during playing of the earlier portion of video content before displaying/skipping advertisement, not causing display of the information related to object in portion of advertisement during playing of the previous/earlier portion of the video and/or advertisement – see include, but are not limited to, Gupta: figures 3-7, paragraphs 0020-0022, 0031, 0039, 0041, 0044, 0048 and discussion in “response to arguments” above).
Alternative to Gupta, Harada discloses based at least in part on determining that the information related to object was provided to the device during playing of earlier portion of content, refrain from causing display of the information related to the object during the playing of the first portion (see for example, paragraphs 0292-0293, claim 9, which describe excluding information of video content which the viewer already viewed from the information for the video content including the frame feature values of the scenes which are searched based on the information of the video content which the viewer already viewed in the storage means).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wang with the teachings including determining information related to object was not provided to the device during playing of the earlier portion, and refrain from causing display of information related to the object during playing of the first portion of video stream based at least in part on determining that the information related to the object was provided to the device during the earlier portion of the video stream as taught by Gupta or Harada (hereinafter referred to as Gupta/Harada) in order to yield predictable result of identifying ensuring that the user will view a portion of content that was not viewed during previous viewing of the content (Gupta: paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 14, Yang in view of Alon/Chaturvedi and Gupta/Harada discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: generate for output, during the first portion of the video stream, a notification that the object has been identified (generate for output a notification/keyword/tag that an object has been identified – see include, but are not limited to, Yang: figures 5-7; Alon: figures 13, 17; Harada: paragraphs 0292-0293; Chaturvedi: figures 1-7); and
based at least in part on determining that the information related to the object was provided to the device during the playing of the first portion of the video stream, refrain from causing display of the notification that the object has been identified during the playback of the first portion of the video stream (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 11 and Gupta: figures 3-7, paragraphs 0020-0022, 0043-0044; Harada: paragraphs 0292-0293).
Regarding claim 16, Yang in view of Alon/Chaturvedi and Gupta/Harada discloses the system of claim 11, wherein to provide the information related to the object, the control circuitry is configured to: determine a type of information desired by a user associated with the device; and determine a method of outputting the information related to the object to the device based at least in part on a method of output preferred by the user (determining user preference/selection and presentation information related to the object preferred by the user – see include, but are not limited to, Yang: figures 5-9, paragraphs 0015, 0076, Alon: paragraphs 0201, 0250; Chaturvedi: figures 1, 6, 9).
Regarding claim 20, Yang in view of Alon/Chaturvedi and Gupta/Harada discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more classification models are included in a plurality of classification models, wherein each of the plurality of classification models is provided by a different vendor (different vendor/advertiser), and wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: receive, using the input/output circuitry, from each respective vendor, a bid for the object; determine a winning vendor (top similar products or top rank product); and retrieve the information related to the object from the winning vendor (see include, but are not limited to, Alon: figures 3, 5-6, 23; Chaturvedi: figures 1-3, 5-6, 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang with the teaching of receiving bid for the object, determining winner and retrieving information from the winner as further taught by Alon/Chaturvedi in order to yield predictable result such as increasing revenue from advertiser(s).
Regarding claim 1, limitations that correspond to the system in claim 11 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 11. Particularly, Yang in view of Alon/Chaturvedi and Gupta/Harada discloses a computer-implemented method for enabling user-specific real- time information services for identifiable objects in a video stream, the method comprising:
accessing the video stream;
selecting one or more classification models;
identifying, using the one or more selected classification models, an object in a first portion of the video stream, wherein the first portion corresponds to a first timestamp within the video stream;
determining whether information related to the object was, during an earlier portion of the video stream being played at a device, provided to the device, wherein the earlier portion corresponds to a timestamp that occurred prior to the first timestamp and wherein the object was identified, using the one or more selected classification models, in the earlier portion;
based at least in part on determining that the information related to the object was not provided to the device during playing of the earlier portion of the video stream;
providing the information related to the object to the device during the first portion of the video stream; and
causing display of the information related to the object during playing of the first portion of the video stream; and
based at least in part on determining that the information related to the object was provided to the device during the playing of the earlier portion of the video stream, refraining from causing display of the information related to the object during the playing of the first portion of the video stream. (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 11 above).
Regarding claims 4, 6,10, the additional limitations that correspond to the additional limitation of system in claims 14, 16, 20 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claims 14, 16, 20.
Regarding claim 7, Yang in view of Alon/Chaturvedi and Gupta/Harada discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting, to the device, (a) the video stream and (b) respective metadata for each identified object in the video stream (video stream and respective metadata/identifier/label/tag, keywords, etc. for each object such as a baseball hat, brown bear, chair, etc. – see include, but are not limited to, figures 4-9; Alon: paragraphs 0232, 0255, 0528; Chaturvedi: figure 1).
Regarding claim 52, Yang in view of Alon/Chaturvedi and Gupta/Harada discloses method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving input, during the first portion of the video stream, of the object displayed in the first portion of the video stream; and based at least in part on receiving the input, performing the determining whether the information related to the object was provided to the device during the earlier portion of the video stream (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 1 and include, but are not limited to, Yang: figures 2-9; Gupta: figures 3-7, paragraphs 0020-0022, 0043-0044; Chaturvedi: figures 1, 6-9; Harada: paragraphs 0292-0293).
Regarding claim 53, Yang in view of Alon/Chaturvedi and Gupta/Harada discloses method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the information related to the object was, during the earlier portion of the video stream being played at the device, provided to the device comprises determining whether the information related to the object was inserted in or overlayed on the during playing of the earlier portion of the video stream at the device, and providing the information related to the object to the device during the first portion of the video stream comprises causing the information related to the object to be inserted in or overlayed during playing of the first portion of the video stream at the device (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 1 and include, but are not limited to, Yang: figures 2-9; Gupta: figures 3-7, paragraphs 0020-0022, 0043-0044; Chaturvedi: figures 1, 9, col. 6, lines 15-20, col. 5, lines 55-65).
Regarding claim 54, Yang in view of Alon/Chaturvedi and Gupta/Harada discloses method of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more classification models is configured to identify one or more objects of a respective genre (each model is configured to identify one or more object of a respective category/type or product category - see Yang: paragraphs 0068, 0123; Alon: paragraphs 0136, 0164, 0293; Chaturvedi: figures 1, 9, col. 3, lines 22-30, col. 8, lines 4-56, col. 13, lines 21-26).
Regarding claims 55-56, the additional limitations of system that correspond to the additional limitations of method in claims 54, 53 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claims 54 and 53.
Claims 2, 5, 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20220239988) in view of Alon/Chaturvedi and Gupta/Harada as applied to claim 1 or claim 11 and further in view of Asbun et al. (US 20190191203).
Regarding claim 12, Yang in view of Alon/Chaturvedi and Gupta/Harada discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to receive, using the input/output circuitry, from a server, the one or more classification models and the video stream (see include, but are not limited to, Yang: figures 5-8; Alon: figures 13, 15, 17, 21, 23).
Asbun discloses control circuitry is configured to receive, using input/output circuitry, from a server, the one or more classification models via a separate transmission from media stream (receiving, using input/output circuitry of at the dash client, from a server such as content server, ad decision server and/or ad server, one or more model with MPD, via separate transmission such as out of band means (e.g., using a control channel) or transmission that is different from the media stream – see include, but are not limited to, paragraphs 0043, 0046, 0079-0080, figures 5, 21-23).
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 Yang in view of Alon with the teaching of receiving model from server via separate transmission from the media content as further taught by Asbun in order to yield predictable result such as to access the model and/or metadata without interfering or process media stream or improve convenience for updating MPD/model (paragraphs 0061, 0063).
Regarding claim 15, Yang in view of Alon/Chaturvedi and Gupta/Harada discloses the system of claim 11, wherein to provide the additional information related to the object, the control circuitry c is further configured to navigate to a link/address associated with the object (link/address related to the object to access additional information or purchase the product – see include, but are not limited to, Yang: figures 6-7). However, Yang does not explicitly disclose the link/address comprises URL.
Asbun further discloses generating for presentation information related to the object is configured to navigate a URL associated with an object (URL associated with object of advertisement or secondary content/viewport – see include, but are not limited to, figures 6, 21, 23, paragraphs 0043, 0046, 0060, 0064, 0142).
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 Yang in view of Alon with the teaching of link comprises URL as further taught by Asbun in order to yield predictable result of improving convenience to retrieve content associated with the object at addressable location on a server (para. 0046).
Regarding claims 2, 5, the additional limitations that correspond to the additional limitation of system in claims 12, 15 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claims 12, 15.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20220239988) in view of Alon/Chaturvedi and Gupta/Harada as applied to claim 7 or claim 17 and further in view of Lev et al. (US 20180196879).
Regarding claim 8, Yang in view of Alon/Chaturvedi and Gupta/Harada discloses the method of claim 7, wherein transmitting respective metadata for each identified object in the video stream further comprises transmitting metadata from each of the one or more classification models (transmitting metadata for each classification model – see include, but are not limited to, figures 4-9; Alon: paragraphs 0232, 0255, 0528). However, Yang does not explicitly disclose the metadata is transmitted separately.
Lev discloses separately transmit metadata from each of the one or more classification models (separately transmit metadata from each of classification models 224 and/or classification models generated by classification model generator 226 – see include, but are not limited to, figures 2, 4a, 4c, 4d, paragraphs 0074-0077, 0083-0087).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang in view of Alon with the teaching of separately transmitting metadata for each classification model as taught by Lev in order to yield predictable result of adjusting or updating metadata easily (see include, paragraphs 0107, 0115-0118).
Regarding claim 18, the additional limitations of the system that correspond to the additional limitation of method in claim 8 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bonic (US 20230360292) discloses visual database system for multimedia data representation (see also paragraph 0021).
Hatrori et al. (US 20140366065) discloses method, scene list output device and program for refraining causing display of information related to object/scene of content that is already displayed (see paragraph 0130, 0128, figure 2).
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 at 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
January 15, 2026