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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant mainly argues that Meredith does not teach or suggest the features of “determining, by the processor set, an advertising tolerance level of the user based on the detected activities of the user watching the streaming video and determining, by the processor set, an optimal advertisement interval in the streaming video based on the advertisement tolerance level of the user” recited in claim 1. This argument is not persuasive.
“Advertisement tolerance level” of the user is described in the specification at paragraphs 0042 and 0063 as a percentage on a scale of 0 to 100 based on the user’s activities watching the video for a period. High percentages of the advertisement tolerance level indicate more optimal opportunities to interrupt streaming the content of the video to show ads.
Meredith discloses the system comprising one or more processors using scoring algorithm to determine a likelihood of interest of one or more viewers in particular advertisements based on current environment data associated with an area serviced by the CPE device. The scoring algorithm may take into account historical data (e.g., prior responses to advertisements), temporal data associated with the advertisements, presence information associated with portable communication devices in an area serviced by the CPE device, usage information associated with other network capable devices in the area (such as internet-of-things devices), other data, or combinations thereof. A score calculated based on a particular scoring algorithm may indicate an estimate of the likelihood that a view at the associated media device will be interested in the corresponding advertisement. The calculated scores may range from 0 to 100 with low score numbers indicating probable lack of interest in the advertisement and high scores indicating probable interest in the advertisement. See 0017, 0039, 0069. Thus, a high ad score indicates a high chance of the user willing to watch the selected ad. Since the ad content is highly relevant, it increases the user’s tolerance for the ad.
As noted above, calculating an ad score is based on historical data and environmental data associated with the user. Environmental data and user historical data comprise information such as user interaction, viewing habit, usage information associated with other network capable devices in the area (such as internet-of-things devices), location...etc., correspond to the activities or behaviors of the user while watching the media content, for example, a channel change away from the media content stream, a refrigerator door was opened during presentation of the advertisement, no channel change and no muting the sound, user devices in proximity to the media device during the advertisement and remained in proximity to the media device throughout the advertisement. See 009-0017, 0064, 0065, 0067, 0084.
Meredith further discloses that the system determines a duration for the advertising block in connection with the ad score in that a sum of playtimes of the selected ads to be equal or less than the duration of the advertising block for playing the selected ads. Meredith also discloses that a play restriction for a particular advertisement may specify particular times that the advertisement cannot be presented, and the scoring algorithm may assign the advertisement a score of zero when the play restriction and the temporal factors indicate that the advertisement cannot be played. In another example, when the duration of the advertising block is 25 seconds, all advertisements with durations of greater than 25 seconds are given scores of zero by the scoring algorithm. See 0087, 0090 and 0094. Thus, the system determines a time interval for advertising in connection with the high ad score corresponding to the “advertisement tolerance level” of the user for playing advertising during the ad break.
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 Sarin by applying Meredith’s calculated ad score based on the user history data and/or environmental data as a threshold value indicating the user’s ad tolerance level and determining the duration of the advertising block in connection with the ad score for playing the selected ads within the duration of the advertising block in order to maximize ad relevance and user engagement.
In addition, the claimed “advertisement tolerance level” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in the art and in light of the applicant’s Specification as mentioned above. The claim does not preclude the interpretation Meredith’s “ad score” as a threshold value corresponding to the claimed “advertisement tolerance level”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With respect to claims 13 and 17, the responses to arguments addressed with respect to claim 1 above are also applicable to claims 13 and 17.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected at least for reasons described above regarding independent claims 1, 13, and 17, and by virtue of their respective dependencies upon respective independent claims 1, 13 and 17.
Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-20 are maintained.
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, 5, 6, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin (US 20230196425 A1) and further in view of Meredith et al. (US 20170169462 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sarin teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor set, an opt-in from a user; in response to the opt-in, and detecting via an Internet of Things (IoT) sensor, activities of the user watching a streaming video on a client device (receiving, by a processor set of system 100, an opt-in and/or permission from a user, and in response monitoring via IoT sensor behaviors and/or activities of the user watching a media content on a user device. See FIG. 1, 0019, 0024, 0035, 0041, 0050, 0059, 0063);
Sarin lacks to teach determining, by the processor set, an advertisement tolerance level of the user based on the detected activities of the user watching the streaming video; determining, by the processor set, an optimal advertisement interval in the streaming video based on the advertisement tolerance level of the user; and streaming, by the processor set, advertisements during the optimal advertising interval in the streaming video on the client device. However, Meredith teaches determining, by processor set of the system 100, score representing a likelihood of interest for the advertisement based at least on current environment data and/or user historical data; determining, by the processor set of the system 100, duration for the adverting blocks based on the score; streaming, by processor set of the system 100, targeted advertisements during the determined duration to a media device for display – see 0009-0017, 0020, 0026, 0039, 0041, 0043, 0048, 0053, 0061, 0064-0069, 0070, 0084, 0087, 0089, 0090, 0094. 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 Sarin by applying Meredith’s calculated ad score based on the user history data and/or environmental data as a threshold value indicating the user’s ad tolerance level and determining the duration of the advertising block in connection with the ad score for playing the selected ads within the duration of the advertising block in order to maximize ad relevance and user engagement.
Regarding claim 5, Sarin in view of Meredith further teaches sending, by the processor set, the optimal advertising interval to a video server (sending the environment data, information identifying a media content stream, a duration of an advertising block, or combinations thereof, to a server - see Meredith: 0041, 0043, 0048, 0070, 0071, 0089).
Regarding claim 6, Sarin in view of Meredith further teaches receiving, by the processor set and from a video server, streaming the advertisements during the optimal advertising interval in the streaming video on the client device (the server sends the set of advertisements to the media device during the duration – see Meredith: 0029, 0048, 0087).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sarin and Meredith teaches storing, by the processor set, the detected activities, the advertisement tolerance level, and the optimal advertisement interval in persistent storage (see Sarin: 0031; Meredith: 0065. 0067, 0070).
Regarding claim 12, Sarin teaches that the IoT sensor comprises a camera integrated in the client device (see 0015, 0035, 0036).
Claims 2, 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin (US 20230196425 A1) and Meredith et al. (US 20170169462 A1) and further in view of Deephanphongs et al. (US 20140344017 A1).
Regarding claims 2-3, Sarin lacks to teach the features of identifying, by the processor set, attention points of the user on a screen of the client device, and analyzing, by the processor set, attention points of the user on a screen of the client device. Deephanphongs discloses determining user’s gaze point of the user on a display device and analyzing user’s gaze point of the user on the display device. See 0053, 0090, 0094-0097, 0107. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sarin and Meredith by identifying attention points of the user on the screen of the client device, and analyzing attention points of the user on the screen of the client device as disclosed or suggested by Deephanphongs to determine user’s attraction level with respect to the media content being displayed.
Regarding claim 11, Sarin in view of Meredith teaches determining the advertisement tolerance level of the user based on the activities detected (determining score representing a likelihood of interest for the advertisement based at least on current environment data and/or user historical data. See Meredith: 0020, 0061, 0064). The combination of Sarin and Meredith does not teach determining the advertisement tolerance level of the user based on an analysis of attention points of the user on a screen of the client device. Deephanphongs discloses determining user interest based on analysis of user’s gaze point of the user on a display. See 0049, 0053, 0090, 0094-0097, 0107. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sarin and Meredith by determining the advertisement tolerance level of the user based on an analysis of attention points of the user on a screen of the client device as disclosed or suggested by Deephanphongs in order to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of ad targeting.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin (US 20230196425 A1) and Meredith et al. (US 20170169462 A1) and further in view of Partridge et al. (US 20120130806 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Sarin in view of Meredith teaches determining the advertisement tolerance level of the user based on the activities detected (determining score representing a likelihood of interest for the advertisement based at least on current environment data and/or user historical data. See Meredith: 0020, 0061, 0064). The combination of Sarin and Meredith does not teach predicting a next activity of the user as recited in claim 4, and determining the advertisement tolerance level of the user based a predicted next activity as recited in claim 10. Partridge teaches that subsequent to determining the consumer's activities, the system predicts upcoming advertising opportunities and consumer receptivity. If multiple possible future activities are predicted, the system calculates the receptivity and opportunity scores for each possible activity. See FIG. 2, 0045, 0047. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sarin and Meredith by predicting a next activity of the user and determining the advertisement tolerance level of the user based a predicted next activity as taught or suggested by Partridge in order in order to provide targeted ads accurately.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin (US 20230196425 A1) and Meredith et al. (US 20170169462 A1) and further in view of Price (US 7813954 B1).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Sarin in view of Meredith teaches determining the advertisement tolerance level comprises determining the advertisement tolerance level of the user based on the activities detected (determining score representing a likelihood of interest for the advertisement based at least on current environment data and/or user historical data. See Meredith: 0020, 0061, 0064). The combination of Sarin and Meredith does not teach determining a likelihood that the user intends to continue watching the streaming video as recited in claim 9, and determining the advertisement tolerance level of the user based on a likelihood that the user intends to continue watching the streaming video as recited in claim 9. However, Price discloses determining an interest parameter of user profile which is indicative of an estimated time interval during which the user is predicted to continue viewing a particular advertisement. See col. 8, lines 10-14 and col. 9, lines 55-62. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sarin and Meredith by determining a likelihood that the user intends to continue watching the streaming video, and determining the advertisement tolerance level of the user based on a likelihood that the user intends to continue watching the streaming video as disclosed or suggested by Price to order maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of ad targeting.
Claims 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin (US 20230196425 A1) and of Deephanphongs et al. (US 20140344017 A1) and further in view of Meredith et al. (US 20170169462 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Sarin teaches a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media having program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media (see 0025, 0070), the program instructions executable to: receive an opt-in from a user; in response to the opt-in, detect, via an Internet of Things (IoT) sensor, activities of the user watching a streaming video on a client device (receiving, by a processor set of system 100, an opt-in and/or permission from a user, and in response monitoring via IoT sensor behaviors and/or activities of the user watching a media content on a user device. See FIG. 1, 0019, 0024, 0035, 0041, 0050, 0059, 0063).
Sarin lacks to teach identifying the attention points of the user on the screen of the client device as recited in claim 14. Sarin further lacks to teach analyzing attention points of the user on a screen of the client device; and determine an advertisement tolerance level of the user based on the analysis of the attention points of the user on the screen of the client device as recited in claim 13. Deephanphongs discloses determining user’s gaze point of the user on a display device and analyzing user’s gaze point of the user on the display device. See 0049, 0053, 0090, 0094-0097, 0107. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sarin and Meredith by identifying the attention points of the user on the screen of the client device, analyzing attention points of the user on a screen of the client device, and determining the advertisement tolerance level of the user based on an analysis of attention points of the user on a screen of the client device as disclosed or suggested by Deephanphongs in order to determine user’s attraction level with respect to the media content being displayed so as to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of ad targeting.
The combination of Sarin and Deephanphongs lacks to teach determining an optimal advertisement interval in the streaming video based on the advertisement tolerance level of the user; and stream advertisements during the optimal advertising interval in the streaming video on the client device. Meredith teaches determining, by the processor set of the system 100, duration for the adverting blocks based on the interest score; streaming, by processor set of the system 100, targeted advertisements during the determined duration to a media device for display. See 0020, 0026, 0039, 0041, 0043, 0048, 0053, 0061, 0064, 0068, 0070, 0087, 0089, 0094. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sarin and Deephanphongs by determining an optimal advertisement interval in the streaming video based on the advertisement tolerance level of the user; and stream advertisements during the optimal advertising interval in the streaming video on the client device as taught or suggested by Meredith to increase effectiveness in delivering the appropriate advertisements to the viewer.
Regarding claim 16, Sarin in view of Deephanphongs and Meredith teaches determining the advertisement tolerance level of the user based on the analysis of the attention points of the user on the screen of the client device and the detected activities (determining user interest based on analysis of user’s gaze point of the user on a display. See Deephanphongs: 0049, 0053, 0090, 0094-0097, 0107; determining score representing a likelihood of interest for the advertisement based at least on current environment data and/or user historical data. See Meredith: 0020, 0061, 0064).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin (US 20230196425 A1) and Deephanphongs et al. (US 20140344017 A1) and (US Meredith et al. (US 20170169462 A1) and further in view of Price (US 7813954 B1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sarin, Deephanphongs and Meredith lacks to teach determining a likelihood that the user intends to continue watching the streaming video. However, Price discloses determining an interest parameter of user profile which is indicative of an estimated time interval during which the user is predicted to continue viewing a particular advertisement. See col. 8, lines 10-14 and col. 9, lines 55-62. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sarin, Deephanphongs and Meredith by determining a likelihood that the user intends to continue watching the streaming video as disclosed or suggested by Price to order maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of ad targeting.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin (US 20230196425 A1) in view of Partridge et al. (US 20120130806 A1) and further in view of Meredith et al. (US 20170169462 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Sarin teaches a system (see FIG. 1) comprising a processor set, a computer readable memory, one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media (see 0025, 0070), the program instructions executable to: receive an opt-in from a user; in response to the opt-in, detect, via an Internet of Things (IoT) sensor, activities of the user watching a streaming video on a client device (receiving, by a processor set of system 100, an opt-in and/or permission from a user, and in response monitoring via IoT sensor behaviors and/or activities of the user watching a media content on a user device. See FIG. 1, 0019, 0024, 0035, 0041, 0050, 0059, 0063).
Sarin lacks to teach predicting a next activity of the user, determining the advertisement tolerance level of the user based the predicted next activity. Partridge teaches that subsequent to determining the consumer's activities, the system predicts upcoming advertising opportunities and consumer receptivity. If multiple possible future activities are predicted, the system calculates the receptivity and opportunity scores for each possible activity See FIG. 2, 0045, 0047. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sarin and Meredith by predicting a next activity of the user and determining the advertisement tolerance level of the user based a predicted next activity as taught or suggested by Partridge in order to provide targeted ads accurately.
The combination of Sarin and Partridge lacks to teach determining an optimal advertisement interval in the streaming video based on the advertisement tolerance level of the user; and stream advertisements during the optimal advertising interval in the streaming video on the client device. Meredith teaches determining, by the processor set of the system 100, duration for the adverting blocks based on the interest score; streaming, by processor set of the system 100, targeted advertisements during the determined duration to a media device for display. See 0020, 0026, 0039, 0041, 0043, 0048, 0053, 0061, 0064, 0068, 0070, 0087, 0089, 0094. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sarin and Partridge by determining an optimal advertisement interval in the streaming video based on the advertisement tolerance level of the user; and stream advertisements during the optimal advertising interval in the streaming video on the client device as taught or suggested by Meredith to increase effectiveness in delivering the appropriate advertisements to the viewer.
Regarding claim 20, Sarin in view of Partridge and Meredith teaches determining the advertisement tolerance level of the user based a predicted next activity and the activities detected by the at least one IoT sensor (determining advertising opportunities and user receptivity based on the predicted user’s future activities. See FIG. 2, 0045, 0047; determining score representing a likelihood of interest for the advertisement based at least on current environment data and/or user historical data monitored by IoT sensor. See Meredith: 0020, 0061, 0064).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin (US 20230196425 A1) in view of Partridge et al. (US 20120130806 A1) and Meredith et al. (US 20170169462 A1) and further in view of Deephanphongs et al. (US 20140344017 A1).
Regarding 18, Sarin lacks to teach the features of analyzing, by the processor set, attention points of the user on the screen of the client device. Deephanphongs discloses analyzing user’s gaze point of the user on the display device. See 0053, 0090, 0094-0097, 0107. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sarin, Partridge and Meredith by analyzing attention points of the user on the screen of the client device as disclosed or suggested by Deephanphongs to determine user’s attraction level with respect to the media content being displayed.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarin (US 20230196425 A1) in view of Partridge et al. (US 20120130806 A1) and Meredith et al. (US 20170169462 A1) and further in view of Price (US 7813954 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Sarin lacks to teach determining a likelihood that the user intends to continue watching the streaming video. However, Price discloses determining an interest parameter of user profile which is indicative of an estimated time interval during which the user is predicted to continue viewing a particular advertisement. See col. 8, lines 10-14 and col. 9, lines 55-62. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sarin, Partridge and Meredith by determining a likelihood that the user intends to continue watching the streaming video as disclosed or suggested by Price to order maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of ad targeting.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGOC K VU whose telephone number is (571)272-7306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday 10AM - 6:30PM; Tuesday & Friday: 1PM - 5PM. Wednesday and Thursday: out of office.
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.
/NGOC K VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
