CTNF 18/128,500 CTNF 77363 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 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 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 Sarin by 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 as taught or suggested by Meredith to increase effectiveness in delivering the appropriate advertisements to the viewer. 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, the streaming 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, advertisement tolerance level, and 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 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 the screen of the client device, and analyzing, by the processor set, attention points of the user on the 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 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) . 07-21-aia AIA 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 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) . 07-21-aia AIA 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 . 07-21-aia AIA 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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Birch et al. (US 20120109755 A1) teach a system and method for dynamically identifying content and/or advertisements in a content stream that are to be replaced by a replacement stream carrying targeted advertisements. Sallas et al. (US 20170228774 A1) teach systems and methods providing targeting information for advertisements and other content. Various features further provide techniques for re-engaging a user if the user stops viewing or otherwise consuming content. 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 & Thursday: 10AM-6:30PM EST; Tuesday, Wednesday & Friday: 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 Application/Control Number: 18/128,500 Page 2 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/128,500 Page 3 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/128,500 Page 4 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/128,500 Page 5 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/128,500 Page 6 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/128,500 Page 7 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/128,500 Page 8 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/128,500 Page 9 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/128,500 Page 10 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/128,500 Page 11 Art Unit: 2421
Prosecution Insights