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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11, 13, and 20-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 11, 13, 20, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Cordray et al. (US 2007/0154168), Bates et al. (US 10147461), Eriksson et al. (US 2018/0139501), and Geramifard (US 2015/0172787).
Regarding claim 1, Cordray teaches a method comprising:
obtaining first media content that includes a video content component ([0109], “User equipment devices 2208, 2210, and 2212 may receive media (such as television, music, web pages, etc.) and other data from distribution facility 2204 over communications paths, such as communications paths 2214, 2216, and 2218, respectively.”),
wherein the obtained first media content includes a first set of segments ([0011], “In one aspect of the invention, media programs can have logical segments, and user equipment can monitor user interest with respect to particular media program segments.”);
obtaining metadata indicating a characteristic of an entirety of the obtained first media content ([0115], “In some television-centric embodiments, for example, the guidance application may be a stand-alone interactive television program guide that receives program guide data via a data feed (e.g., a continuous feed, trickle feed, or data in the vertical blanking interval of a channel). Data source 2220 in system 2200 may include a program listings database that is used to provide the user with television program-related information such as scheduled broadcast times, titles, channels, ratings information (e.g., parental ratings and critic's ratings), user or community interest information (e.g., a segment interest table, FIGS. 14-16), detailed title descriptions, genre or category information (e.g., sports, news, movies, etc.), program format (e.g., standard definition, high definition) and information on actors and actresses.”);
obtaining user data associated with a user ([0066], “Referring now to FIG. 7, there is shown an exemplary display screen 700 that allows a user to generate a tailored version of a media program by designating particular segments of a media program to access/record and particular segments to not access/record. … In this manner, a user can indicate which media program segments he or she is interested in accessing/recording 704, and which media program segments he or she is not interested in accessing/recording 706. For example, although a user may watch the FOX evening news, the user may have no interest in watching the world news, traffic news, entertainment news, and upcoming movie segments 706 of the evening news. Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 8, the unchecked segments 802 would not be presented to the user. Only segments that the user has designated with a check mark 704 can be presented/recorded. In one embodiment, the display screen 700 of FIG. 7 can initially be displayed with certain segment labels already checked, based on knowing a user's interest in the news program's segments or in analogous segments of other news programs.” Fig. 7);
using at least
the obtained user data ([0066], “Referring now to FIG. 7, there is shown an exemplary display screen 700 that allows a user to generate a tailored version of a media program by designating particular segments of a media program to access/record and particular segments to not access/record.”), and
segment data associated with each segment of the first set of segments ([0066], “In one embodiment, the labels can be implemented as metadata in the media program. In one example, if the media program is the FOX evening news program, the news program may include segments such as local news, world news, traffic news, weather news, sports news, entertainment news, daily book review, and upcoming movies news segments 702, which can be identified by metadata in the media program.” [0078], “FIG. 9 shows an exemplary data structure 900 that can be used to identify a media program segment. The data structure 900 can be implemented as metadata and can be embedded in a media program.”),
to determine segment relevance data for each such segment ([0054], “the disclosed technology can monitor a user's interest in segments of a particular media program and suggest, present, or record for the user analogous or relevant segments of other media programs. For example, if a user typically watches a Top Plays segment of a sports program, such as ESPN Sportscenter, the disclosed technology can suggest, present, or record for the user an analogous Top Plays segment of another sports program, such as FOX Sports.”);
using at least the determined segment relevance data for the segments in the first set of segments as a basis to select, from among the first set of segments, a second set of segments having fewer segments than the first set of segments ([0066], “In this manner, a user can indicate which media program segments he or she is interested in accessing/recording 704, and which media program segments he or she is not interested in accessing/recording 706. For example, although a user may watch the FOX evening news, the user may have no interest in watching the world news, traffic news, entertainment news, and upcoming movie segments 706 of the evening news. Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 8, the unchecked segments 802 would not be presented to the user. Only segments that the user has designated with a check mark 704 can be presented/recorded.” Fig. 8);
using at least the selected second set of segments to generate second media content that includes a video content component, wherein the generated second media content is shorter in duration than the obtained first media content; and outputting for presentation the generated second media content ([0066], “In this manner, a user can indicate which media program segments he or she is interested in accessing/recording 704, and which media program segments he or she is not interested in accessing/recording 706. For example, although a user may watch the FOX evening news, the user may have no interest in watching the world news, traffic news, entertainment news, and upcoming movie segments 706 of the evening news. Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 8, the unchecked segments 802 would not be presented to the user. Only segments that the user has designated with a check mark 704 can be presented/recorded.” Fig. 8).
Cordray does not expressly teach wherein the obtained metadata comprises plot data representing a synopsis of the obtained first media content. Cordray also does not expressly teach that the user data is user profile data. Cordray also does not expressly teach using at least the obtained metadata indicating a characteristic of the entirety of the obtained first media content to determine segment relevance. Cordray also does not expressly teach wherein the segment data associated with a given segment of the first set of segments indicates an extent to which the given segment is a spoiler of the first media content.
Bates provides a teaching for
user profile data (Col. 16, line 65 to col. 17, line 21, “In some embodiments, the media guidance application may use the existing versions of the story to retrieve or generate customized content for the user. This content may include alternative plot segments that are based on the user reaction to the summary, user preferences from a user profile, previous user behavior, etc.” Col. 21, lines 3-27, “The media guidance application may allow a user to provide user profile information or may automatically compile user profile information. The media guidance application may, for example, monitor the content the user accesses and/or other interactions the user may have with the guidance application. Additionally, the media guidance application may obtain all or part of other user profiles that are related to a particular user (e.g., from other web sites on the Internet the user accesses, such as www.Tivo.com, from other media guidance applications the user accesses, from other interactive applications the user accesses, from another user equipment device of the user, etc.), and/or obtain information about the user from other sources that the media guidance application may access.”).
In view of Bates’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cordray such that user data is user profile data in order to provide additional means for tailoring content according to user interests.
The combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein the obtained metadata comprises plot data representing a synopsis of the obtained first media content. The combination also does not expressly teach using at least the obtained metadata indicating a characteristic of the entirety of the obtained first media content to determine segment relevance. The combination also does not expressly teach wherein the segment data associated with a given segment of the first set of segments indicates an extent to which the given segment is a spoiler of the first media content.
Eriksson teaches:
wherein metadata comprises plot data representing a synopsis of media content ([0042], “the analyzer may determine the relevancy of a segment based on various appropriate factors (e.g., user preferences, analysis of segment descriptions, etc.).” [0054], “The process 300 may then determine (at 350) the relevancy of the various segments. Such a determination may be made in various appropriate ways (e.g., based on analysis of content descriptions, social media feedback, user preference, etc.). In some cases, the process 300 may associate various tags or descriptive elements to the segments potentially related to the relevancy of the segments (e.g., names of characters featured in the segments, plot synopsis, etc.). In this way, the relevancy of segments may be adjusted depending on various factors (e.g., end-user preferences, maximum specified viewing time, etc.). In addition, the relevancy may be represented in various different ways (e.g., as a binary relevant/not relevant flag, as an overall relevancy score, as a relevancy score associated with a tag or keyword, etc.).”);
using metadata indicating a characteristic of an entirety of media content to determine segment relevance ([0004], “Some embodiments generate and/or provide optimized content. Such content may include a number of sequential associated segments each of which may include video, audio, graphics, and/or other types of multimedia content. In some embodiments, such segments may be automatically identified based on the subject matter of a source content item (e.g., multiple episodes of a television (TV) show).” [0054], “In some cases, the process 300 may associate various tags or descriptive elements to the segments potentially related to the relevancy of the segments (e.g., names of characters featured in the segments, plot synopsis, etc.).”).
In view of Eriksson’s teaching, 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 wherein the obtained metadata comprises plot data representing a synopsis of the obtained first media content, and using at least the obtained metadata indicating a characteristic of the entirety of the obtained first media content to determine segment relevance. The modification would serve to allow for personalization of content based on plots in content. The modification would thereby improve the user experience.
The combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein the segment data associated with a given segment of the first set of segments indicates an extent to which the given segment is a spoiler of the first media content.
Geramifard teaches segment data associated with a given segment indicates an extent to which the given segment is a spoiler of media content ([0038], “Based on the user preferences and the identified portions of the program which are associated with the user preferences, the system may select and order the program portions to include in a preview to be displayed to the user, as shown in block 618. The selection and ordering process may depend on a number of factors. Program portions, such as scenes, may be selected based on user preferences, the weight associated with those preferences, negative preferences, or other information included in the user profile. For example, the system may select program scenes which include the highest weighted user preferred features but may also avoid certain content due to spoilers, age inappropriate material, etc. During this process the system may determine a user preference score for each scene based on each scene's inclusion of features preferred by the user. The system may then order the scenes in terms of score, reflecting an order of scenes that may appeal to the particular user. The system may then select from among the higher scoring scenes to compile the customized preview.”).
In view of Geramifard’s teaching, 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 wherein the segment data associated with a given segment of the first set of segments indicates an extent to which the given segment is a spoiler of the first media content. The modification would produce an improved system enabled to present summarized content to users while avoiding ruining plot points or surprises.
Regarding claim 2, the combination further teaches wherein the metadata indicating the characteristic of the entirety of the obtained first media content comprises information summarizing a plot of the obtained first media content (Eriksson: [0042], “the analyzer may determine the relevancy of a segment based on various appropriate factors (e.g., user preferences, analysis of segment descriptions, etc.).” [0054], “The process 300 may then determine (at 350) the relevancy of the various segments. Such a determination may be made in various appropriate ways (e.g., based on analysis of content descriptions, social media feedback, user preference, etc.). In some cases, the process 300 may associate various tags or descriptive elements to the segments potentially related to the relevancy of the segments (e.g., names of characters featured in the segments, plot synopsis, etc.). In this way, the relevancy of segments may be adjusted depending on various factors (e.g., end-user preferences, maximum specified viewing time, etc.). In addition, the relevancy may be represented in various different ways (e.g., as a binary relevant/not relevant flag, as an overall relevancy score, as a relevancy score associated with a tag or keyword, etc.).”).
However, the combination as presently combined does not expressly teach text summarizing a plot of the obtained first media content.
Bates teaches text summarizing a plot of media content (Col. 10, lines 32-57, “The media guidance application may retrieve a first set of metadata associated with the first version of the media asset, the first metadata identifying a first sequence of plot segments that collectively represent a story arc in the first version of the media asset. For example, the media guidance application may retrieve subtitles of the movie version of ‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone’ and use the subtitles to generate a first set of a metadata identifying a first sequence of plot segments that collectively represent the story arc of Harry's journey to Hogwarts. The media guidance application may use natural language processing, machine learning algorithms, or another means to process the subtitles or other retrieved metadata in order to generate the first set of metadata identifying the first sequence of plot segments.”).
In view of Bates’s teaching, 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 to include text summarizing a plot of the obtained first media content in order to allow for distribution and presentation of metadata to users. The modification would thereby improve the user experience.
Regarding claim 7, the combination further teaches wherein using at least the selected second set of segments to generate second media content that includes a video content component comprises
concatenating the segments of the selected second set of segments, according to an original sequence of the segments, to generate the second media content (Cordray: [0066], “In this manner, a user can indicate which media program segments he or she is interested in accessing/recording 704, and which media program segments he or she is not interested in accessing/recording 706. For example, although a user may watch the FOX evening news, the user may have no interest in watching the world news, traffic news, entertainment news, and upcoming movie segments 706 of the evening news. Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 8, the unchecked segments 802 would not be presented to the user. Only segments that the user has designated with a check mark 704 can be presented/recorded.” Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, the combination further teaches wherein the obtained first media content further includes an audio content component, and wherein using at least the selected second set of segments to generate second media content that includes a video content component comprises using both the video content component and the audio content component of the obtained first media content to generate the second media content (Cordray: [0141], “In the equipment of FIG. 23 and the other equipment of system 2200 (FIG. 22), the audio associated with various video items is typically distributed with those video items and is generally played back to the user as the videos are played.”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination further teaches wherein the obtained first media content is a movie or a television program and the generated second media content is a trailer for that movie or television program (Geramifard: [0010], “Offered is a system and method to dynamically create customized trailers or previews that match the content of the full program with a user's previously demonstrated interests. A customized trailer may be more likely to display to the user content from the program that is of interest to the user, thus increasing the likelihood that the user selects the program in question for viewing as well as increasing the likelihood that the user is ultimately satisfied with his or her selection. Using the present system a user may select a program, such as by scrolling over a picture of a movie poster on a website, and a trailer customized based on the user's preferences may be dynamically created and displayed to the user. As used herein the term ‘program’ includes a movie, film, television show, short, online video, or other multimedia content that may be viewed by a user.”).
Regarding claim 24, the combination further teaches wherein the segment data used in selecting the second set of segments comprises closed-captioning or subtitle data extracted from the obtained first media content (Bates: Col. 10, lines 32-57, “The media guidance application may retrieve a first set of metadata associated with the first version of the media asset, the first metadata identifying a first sequence of plot segments that collectively represent a story arc in the first version of the media asset. For example, the media guidance application may retrieve subtitles of the movie version of ‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone’ and use the subtitles to generate a first set of a metadata identifying a first sequence of plot segments that collectively represent the story arc of Harry's journey to Hogwarts. The media guidance application may use natural language processing, machine learning algorithms, or another means to process the subtitles or other retrieved metadata in order to generate the first set of metadata identifying the first sequence of plot segments.”).
Regarding claim 26, the combination further teaches
wherein the obtained first media content is a movie, wherein the first set of segments is a set of scenes of the movie, and wherein the method further comprises employing a scene identification technique to identify the scenes of the movie (Cordray: [0098]; Geramifard: [0010], “Using the present system a user may select a program, such as by scrolling over a picture of a movie poster on a website, and a trailer customized based on the user's preferences may be dynamically created and displayed to the user. As used herein the term ‘program’ includes a movie, film, television show, short, online video, or other multimedia content that may be viewed by a user.” [0013], “As an example, if the user likes particular actor, the server 106 may use the metadata to identify scenes in the program featuring that actor. As a further example, if the user has shown an affinity for action scenes, the server 106 may use the metadata to identify action scenes that feature the actor.” [0026]).
The grounds of rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC §103 are similarly applied to claim 13.
Regarding claim 20, Cordray teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program instructions that upon execution by a processor of a computing system ([0162]-[0163], Fig. 27). The grounds of rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC §103 are similarly applied to the remaining limitations of claim Regarding claim 20,
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Cordray, Bates, Eriksson, Geramifard, and Aher ‘163 et al. (US 2020/0413163, hereinafter “Aher ‘163”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein the user profile data comprises (i) genre preference data and/or (ii) actor/actress preference data.
Aher ‘163 teaches user data comprising genre preference data ([0021], “Methods and systems in accordance with the present disclosure are described herein for presenting an interactive content item matching a user-selected category to a user for a desired duration. For example, a user selects a category such as ‘comedy’ and selects a first interactive content item, ‘Bandersnatch,’ on a media system. The system calculates a total duration of a storyline from the selected show ‘Bandersnatch’ that matches the selected category (e.g., the genre ‘comedy’) and compares the calculated duration to a desired duration for which the user wishes to watch the selected show.”).
In view of Aher ‘163’s teaching, 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 wherein the user profile data comprises (i) genre preference data and/or (ii) actor/actress preference data. The modification would serve to provide additional options for customization of content according to user preferences.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Cordray, Bates, Eriksson, Geramifard, and Amento et al. (US 2010/0251295).
Regarding claim 4, the combination further teaches identifying from the obtained first media content, the first set of segments (Cordray: [0066], “the display screen 700 can show the labels of the segments 702 in the regular version of the media program.” [0078], “FIG. 9 shows an exemplary data structure 900 that can be used to identify a media program segment. The data structure 900 can be implemented as metadata and can be embedded in a media program.”). However, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein identifying from the obtained first media content, the first set of segments comprises: providing at least the obtained first media content to a segment identification model; and responsively receiving from the segment identification model, segment identification data that identifies the first set of segments.
Amento teaches providing at least an obtained first media content to a segment identification model; and responsively receiving from the segment identification model, segment identification data that identifies a first set of segments ([0029], “In a particular embodiment, the media content analyzer 210 identifies the starting positions 218-221 and the ending positions 222-225 by detecting scene transitions of the media content 212. For example, the media content analyzer 210 may identify scene transitions by detecting a change in video imagery or audio content.”).
In view of Amento’s teaching, 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 wherein identifying from the obtained first media content, the first set of segments comprises: providing at least the obtained first media content to a segment identification model; and responsively receiving from the segment identification model, segment identification data that identifies the first set of segments. The modification would serve to provide a supplemental and/or alternative means of identifying segments within content. The modification would thereby improve system flexibility and performance.
Claim(s) 5, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Cordray, Bates, Eriksson, Geramifard, and Aher et al (US 11418859, herein after “Aher ‘859”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination as presently combined does not expressly teach wherein the determined segment relevance data for each such segment includes a plot relevance score for that segment and a user relevance score for that segment.
Geramifard teaches data for each segment includes a user relevance score for that segment ([0038], “Based on the user preferences and the identified portions of the program which are associated with the user preferences, the system may select and order the program portions to include in a preview to be displayed to the user, as shown in block 618. The selection and ordering process may depend on a number of factors. Program portions, such as scenes, may be selected based on user preferences, the weight associated with those preferences, negative preferences, or other information included in the user profile. For example, the system may select program scenes which include the highest weighted user preferred features but may also avoid certain content due to spoilers, age inappropriate material, etc. During this process the system may determine a user preference score for each scene based on each scene's inclusion of features preferred by the user. The system may then order the scenes in terms of score, reflecting an order of scenes that may appeal to the particular user. The system may then select from among the higher scoring scenes to compile the customized preview.”).
In view of Geramifard’s teaching, 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 wherein the determined segment relevance data for each such segment includes a user relevance score for that segment. The modification would serve to improve the accuracy of tailoring content to user preferences.
The combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein the determined segment relevance data for each such segment includes a plot relevance score for that segment.
Aher ‘859 teaches data for each segment includes a plot relevance score for that segment (Col. 10, lines 12-24, “The system then determines which parts of each episode have reference to the storyline, at 404. The parts may be whole scenes within an episode, or may be just a few moments of an episode.” Col. 10, lines 25-35, “Accordingly, the resolution video may be generated comprising the identified parts of the identified episodes, at 405.”).
In view of Aher ‘859’s teaching, 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 wherein the determined segment relevance data for each such segment includes a plot relevance score for that segment. The modification would facilitate identification of content segments relating to a plot or storyline for presentation to users that prefer such content. The modification would serve to enhance the user experience.
Regarding claim 21, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach analysing a news article to determine the extent to which the given segment is a spoiler of the first media content.
Aher ‘859 teaches analysing a news article to determine a spoiler of media content (Col. 2, lines 4-17, “It is relatively easy, once a series has concluded, to find out the conclusion in simple terms, for example, who was the mystery murderer. Such conclusions are often discussed extensively on social media, with or without so-called ‘spoiler alerts’, notifying the user that the conclusion to the series is contained within the content being consumed, e.g., a magazine article, an Instagram post or a YouTube video. The user who has an interest in the series but viewed it incompletely may wish to know the conclusion but may also wish to know how it was resolved, and not only, e.g., the name of the murderer. Alternatively, the user may intentionally find out the conclusion, and then be left wondering how it was resolved, particularly if they are surprised at the conclusion.”).
In view of Aher ‘859’s teaching, 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 to include analysing a news article to determine the extent to which the given segment is a spoiler of the first media content. The modification would serve to facilitate identification of potentially unwanted spoilers in content.
Regarding claim 23, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach analysing a social media platform to determine the extent to which the given segment is a spoiler of the first media content.
Aher ‘859 teaches analysing a social media platform to determine a spoiler of media content (Col. 2, lines 4-17, “It is relatively easy, once a series has concluded, to find out the conclusion in simple terms, for example, who was the mystery murderer. Such conclusions are often discussed extensively on social media, with or without so-called ‘spoiler alerts’, notifying the user that the conclusion to the series is contained within the content being consumed, e.g., a magazine article, an Instagram post or a YouTube video. The user who has an interest in the series but viewed it incompletely may wish to know the conclusion but may also wish to know how it was resolved, and not only, e.g., the name of the murderer. Alternatively, the user may intentionally find out the conclusion, and then be left wondering how it was resolved, particularly if they are surprised at the conclusion.”).
In view of Aher ‘859’s teaching, 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 to include analysing a social media platform to determine the extent to which the given segment is a spoiler of the first media content. The modification would serve to facilitate identification of potentially unwanted spoilers in content.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Cordray, Bates, Eriksson, Geramifard, and Goronzy et al. (US 2005/0120368).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein using at least the determined segment relevance data for the segments in the first set of segments as a basis to select, from among the first set of segments, a second set of segments having fewer segments than the first set of segments comprises selecting segments that have threshold high plot relevance scores and/or threshold high user relevance scores.
Goronzy teaches selecting segments that have threshold high user relevance scores ([0039], “The present invention now forms a summary from the thus identified segments of key events for providing a resume for a consumer containing the interesting events. The basic steps of a method according to the invention are illustrated in the flowchart 40 of FIG. Regarding claim 4, Starting with the segments categorised and rated by the key event detector in step S00, the rating value of each segment is compared with a given threshold value in step S01. The threshold value is taken from the consumer-specific file mentioned above which, as it contains data related to the preferences of a consumer, is further referred to as consumer profile. If a consumer is only interested in the events with a confidence score close to certainty, the threshold value will be close to the rating value defined for a clear event identification, i.e. a categorisation of the event with nearly absolute certainty. If a consumer is interested in all events which might only possibly be associated to certain categories of events, the threshold value will be closer to a rating value representing a high uncertainty.”).
In view of Goronzy’s teaching, 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 wherein using at least the determined segment relevance data for the segments in the first set of segments as a basis to select, from among the first set of segments, a second set of segments having fewer segments than the first set of segments comprises selecting segments that have threshold high plot relevance scores and/or threshold high user relevance scores. The modification would serve to ensure only content of interest is presented to users. The modification would serve to enhance the user experience.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Cordray, Bates, Eriksson, Geramifard, and Noronha et al. (US 2018/0302694).
Regarding claim 9, the combination further teaches wherein the obtained first media content further includes an audio content component, and wherein using at least the selected second set of segments to generate second media content that includes a video content component comprises using the video content component of the obtained first media content and alternate audio content different from the audio content component of the obtained first media content to generate the second media content (Cordray: [0141], “In the equipment of FIG. 23 and the other equipment of system 2200 (FIG. 22), the audio associated with various video items is typically distributed with those video items and is generally played back to the user as the videos are played.”).
The combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach using alternate audio content different from the audio content component of the obtained first media content to generate the second media content.
Noronha teaches using alternate audio content to generate second media content ([0066], “FIG. 7 illustrates a block diagram of an example highlights video clip 700 that includes selected highlight recordings, according to some implementations. In this example scenario, tags 604, 606, 608, and 610 are selected. In various implementations, client device 300 concatenates the selected tags 604, 606, 608, and 610, which results in corresponding concatenated event highlight clips. In some implementations, highlights video clip 700 may transition from event highlight to event highlight using various transitions 706, 708, and 710, which may include user-selected special effects (e.g., dissolves, fades, etc.). In some implementations, the user may add a title, music, and other video aspects for sharing and publishing.”).
In view of Noronha’s teaching, 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 to include using alternate audio content different from the audio content component of the obtained first media content to generate the second media content. The modification would serve to provide users with additional and/or alternative content of interest. The modification would thereby further enhance the user experience.
Regarding claim 10, the combination further teaches wherein the alternate audio content includes music content or voiceover content, and wherein the alternate audio content spans multiple segments of the generated second media content (Noronha: [0066], “FIG. 7 illustrates a block diagram of an example highlights video clip 700 that includes selected highlight recordings, according to some implementations. In this example scenario, tags 604, 606, 608, and 610 are selected. In various implementations, client device 300 concatenates the selected tags 604, 606, 608, and 610, which results in corresponding concatenated event highlight clips. In some implementations, highlights video clip 700 may transition from event highlight to event highlight using various transitions 706, 708, and 710, which may include user-selected special effects (e.g., dissolves, fades, etc.). In some implementations, the user may add a title, music, and other video aspects for sharing and publishing.”).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Cordray, Bates, Eriksson, Geramifard, and Crowe et al. (US 2016/0366479).
Regarding claim 22, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach analysing a movie review platform to determine the extent to which the given segment is a spoiler of the first media content.
Crowe teaches a movie review including a spoiler of media content ([0032], “Content processing module 304, in various embodiments, provides a mechanism for a consumer to modify information (media content) presented to them in a way that limits (conceals) specific information. User preferences are collected as inputs to content processing module 304. User preferences may include such items as a preference not to hear profane language or to see specific imagery (e.g., nudity, sports scores, programming summaries, etc.) which may exist in a selection of media content. … Other non-limiting examples include a preference to exclude graphic violence, nudity, news stories, and so-called ‘spoiler alerts’, such as specific programming summaries or updates, including, but not limited to, sports scores, movie reviews or television episode summaries.”).
In view of Crowe’s teaching, 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 to include analysing a movie review platform to determine the extent to which the given segment is a spoiler of the first media content. The modification would serve to facilitate identification of potentially unwanted spoilers in content.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Cordray, Bates, Eriksson, Geramifard, and Ramamurthy et al. (US 2020/0186852).
Regarding claim 25, the combination further teaches
wherein using at least the determined segment relevance data for the segments in the first set of segments as a basis to select, from among the first set of segments, a second set of segments having fewer segments than the first set of segments comprises: using at least (i) the determined segment relevance data for the segments in the first set of segments (Cordray: [0066], “In this manner, a user can indicate which media program segments he or she is interested in accessing/recording 704, and which media program segments he or she is not interested in accessing/recording 706. For example, although a user may watch the FOX evening news, the user may have no interest in watching the world news, traffic news, entertainment news, and upcoming movie segments 706 of the evening news. Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 8, the unchecked segments 802 would not be presented to the user. Only segments that the user has designated with a check mark 704 can be presented/recorded.” Fig. 8).
However, the combination does not expressly teach using at least an extent to which a given pair of segments are spaced apart within the obtained first media content as a basis to select, from among the first set of segments, a second set of segments having fewer segments than the first set of segments.
Ramamurthy teaches an extent to which a given pair of segments are spaced apart within media content as a basis for selection for presentation ([0044], “As used herein, time-shifted ‘full-version’ video 320 refers to the long, original video, which is the source content, used for any potential video summarization generated. In some embodiments, specific snippets of video for which a user may want to zoom into would require time-shifted full version (e.g., not only summary of the video) to be available to the user. From a video summary or trailer, the user may be interested to expand it into the full version video for that specific snippet of interest. For example, the user may have an interface containing a mosaic of reduced-size images representing key frames or frames at spaced time intervals, thereby allowing the viewer to readily locate and select a scene of interest to be replayed in this time-shifted ‘full-version’ manner.”).
In view of Ramamurthy’s teaching, 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 to include using at least an extent to which a given pair of segments are spaced apart within the obtained first media content as a basis to select, from among the first set of segments, a second set of segments having fewer segments than the first set of segments. The modification would aid in providing viewers with detailed content summaries.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Cordray, Bates, Eriksson, Geramifard, and Agnihotri et al. (US 2009/0196569).
Regarding claim 27, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein the generated second media content includes voice-over narration that bridges a gap between two adjacent segments of the second set of segments that were not adjacent segments in the first set of segments.
Agnihotri teaches wherein generated second media content includes voice-over narration that bridges a gap between two adjacent segments were not adjacent segments ([0054], “a video segment compilation unit 108 for creating such a collection 300 of relevant video segments 302-314 by selecting respective portions 202-214 from the video stream which corresponds to the television program 200. The purpose of this video segment compilation unit 108 is to create a video trailer or alternatively a video abstract of the video stream.” [0061], “While the video segments of the trailer can be completely replaced with the corresponding ones from the recorded video program, i.e. the video stream, the associated audio track can be left untouched because professionally produced trailers usually have a different audio track and use the voice of a narrator to convey additional information about the video program. Alternatively, the higher quality audio track of the recorded video program can be used or mixed with the one of the trailer. Alternatively the narrator's voice of the trailer sound track can be extracted using voice filtering (the same technique used to remove the voice in karaoke systems) and added to the high quality sound track of the recorded video program.”).
In view of Agnihotri’s teaching, 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 to include wherein the generated second media content includes voice-over narration that bridges a gap between two adjacent segments of the second set of segments that were not adjacent segments in the first set of segments. By providing a voice-over narration with content, the modification would serve to enhance the user experience.
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 MICHAEL R TELAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5940. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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 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.
/MICHAEL R TELAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426