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, see Remarks pg. 9, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the status of the prior written description rejection is herein acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 9, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the amendments to claims 1, 6, and 19 are herein acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 9-10, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. In view of the applicant’s arguments and the newly amended limitations, a new grounds of rejection will be set forth below. The Examiner notes that the applicant’s arguments are directed to the newly amended limitations not previously presented. Therefore, a new grounds of rejection will be set forth and the Examiner will rely on the prior art of record, in part, in addition to newly found prior art reference(s) to address the newly amended limitations. Furthermore, the examiner will set forth a new grounds of rejection for claims 14-18 related to new matter.
With respect to the newly amended limitations, the applicant has amended the claims to incorporate the limitations “a portion of the look ahead buffer corresponding to a time interval ahead of a current playback timecode of the linear audiovisual broadcast,” “the operational media analyzer further configured to store a timecode position of the content transition,” and wherein the authorization function releases the notification from the que when the linear audiovisual broadcast reaches the timecode position of the content transition.” The examiner will rely on the teachings of Chatterjee relating to analyzing the media content as it is being delivered or in advance (Chatterjee para 13, 55-57, 59). The examiner will also rely on newly found prior art to Zhang relating to analyzing media content to determine breakpoints which specify timestamps within the duration of the media item where playback of the media item can be halted, and where digital components can be presented. See Zhang para 12-13, 22-23, 28, 32, 40, 67-68, 72. Whereas applicant recites the limitation relating to identifying and storing a timecode position of the content transition when the linear audiovisual broadcast is live, evaluates the technical cues within the receiver-side look-ahead buffer, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have seen the obvious benefit of analyzing live media broadcast in time-shifted viewing (e.g., DVR/PVR) as disclosed in Chatterjee and Dow by further enabling the client device to analyze the time-shifted content stored in a buffer in order to identify those locations within the media item at which breakpoint insertion is appropriate (e.g., where the breakpoint will be least disruptive to users viewing the media item) as disclosed in Zhang. More importantly, Zhang paragraph [0067-0068] teaches digital component(s) are provided to a client device (260) wherein in some implementations, the digital components are provided for presentation at the client device when playback of the media item reaches a given breakpoint among the final set of breakpoints stored for the media item. Furthermore, Zhang states that at least one of the digital components is not included in the media item which a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that at least some digital components are included in the media item or may even be the digital content pertaining to extracted media content as disclosed in the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Regarding independent claim 14 and dependent claims 15-18, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. See MPEP §2163.04 , e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a “simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.”); see also MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”); and MPEP § 2163.04 states “If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”).
With respect to newly amended limitations recited in representative independent claim 14 and dependent claims 15-18 reciting, inter alia, the limitations “an authorization function communicatively coupled to the interrupt manager to detect an optimal time to temporarily pause the productivity application and pass through or release of the notification message from the queue to the end user, the interrupt manager configured to temporarily pause the productivity application and pass through or release a notification to an end user at the optimal time,” the applicant has not clearly pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of said representative claim limitation in the application as filed. The applicant has identified paragraphs [0029] and [0047] in Remarks filed 12/19/2025, however, said paragraphs do not clearly identify what pertains to the limitation “an authorization function communicatively coupled to the interrupt manager to detect an optimal time to temporarily pause the productivity application” and the limitation does not appear in the applicant’s cited paragraphs. For example, paragraphs [0029] and [0047] disclose that a vamping module may also be deployed for more utilitarian applications such as spreadsheet or email applications, however, the claims recites the limitation “coupled to the interrupt manager to detect an optimal time to temporarily pause the productivity application.” The examiner’s position is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to readily identify from the applicant’s cited paragraphs how to pause a spreadsheet or an email application. Furthermore, paragraphs [0029] and [0047] reference a lack of activity and/or idle time which triggers an interrupt queue to be released to the user wherein said lack of activity and/or idle time would be understood by a person of ordinary skill as the user having already paused working with the productivity application. An obviousness rejection with prior art will not be made for claims 14-18. Therefore, the new claims provide a substantive change to the claims which require a different interpretation of the claims but the applicant has not clearly pointed out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s) and the amendments do not appear to be supported in the originally filed specification. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee; Koushik et al. US 20140282705 A1 (hereafter Chatterjee) and in further view of Velazquez; Leonardo et al. US 20100138858 A1 (hereafter Velazquez) and in further view of Dow, Christopher et al. US 20030202772 A1 (hereafter Dow) and in further view of PIERRE LUDOVIC et al. EP 1436986 B2 (hereafter Pierre) and in further view of Gupta; Vikram Makam et al. US9615124B1 (hereafter Gupta) and in further view of Abecassis; Max US 6504990 B1 (hereafter Abecassis) and in further view of Zhang; Wenbo et al. US 20210390130 A1 (hereafter Zhang) and in further view of Jerding; Dean F. et al. US 7308697 B1 (hereafter Jerding).
Regarding claim 1, “a system for managing interrupts to an electronic device outputting a linear audiovisual broadcast from a media application, the system comprising: an interrupt manager communicatively coupled to an operating system running on the electronic device, the interrupt manager configured to receive and temporally defer a notification message in a queue, the notification message generated by an external event, independent of an instruction by an end user” and “an operational media analyzer that evaluates technical cues in the audiovisual broadcast representative of a content transition, the technical cues including at least one of an empty black frame and an end credits sequence the operational media analyzer further configured to store a timecode position of the content transition, and, when the linear audiovisual broadcast is live, evaluates the technical cues within the receiver‑side look‑ahead buffer; an authorization function communicatively coupled to the operational media analyzer to detect the optimal time to pass through or release of the notification from the queue to the end user, wherein the authorization function releases the notification from the que when the linear audiovisual broadcast reaches the timecode position of the content transition the interrupt manager temporarily pauses the audiovisual broadcast” Chatterjee para 22 teaches an operational media analysis software for optical character recognition, pattern recognition, machine vision, algorithms, or utilize voice recognition to retrieve data from the media content that will be utilized by an alert agent 118 to determine whether the programming content should be interrupted by presenting alerts; Chatterjee teaches an operational media analysis software working in conjunction with an alert agent 118 to identify when alerts will be presented (i.e., released). Chatterjee para 26 - the alerts may be delivered from the set-top box 102 to the display or wireless devices 106-110 as text, email, or chat messages, pop-ups, windows, alerts, webpages, or other graphical, audio, or tactile communications to the users; para 57 - the set-top box 304 may temporarily pause streaming media while recording it for subsequent playback in response to communicating the alert. The alert preferences may specify how the alert is displayed to a television or wireless device registered with the set-top box 304 (e.g. entire screen, audio only, video only, partial screen, picture-in-picture, pop up, ticker, overlay, combined methods, etc.). Chatterjee para 39, 62-67 teaches a set-top box comprising DVR/PVR capabilities to record and play live which a person of ordinary skill in the art typically comprises buffering content record on a DVR/PVR. Whereas Chatterjee does not refer to the term “technical cues” related to black frames and credits as claimed, nor timecode positions, in para 13, 21-22, 39, 50-57, 62-67 Chatterjee teaches an operational media analysis software working in conjunction with an alert agent 118 to identify when alerts will be presented (i.e., released) based on the analysis of video content comprising utilizing cue tones, I-frames, manifests, playlists, and Chatterjee’s disclosure teaches elements relating to analyzing media to evaluate technical cues in the audio visual broadcast representative of transitions between program and advertisements and determine an optimal time to pause the media content to present alerts in a cue (i.e., an operational media analyzer that evaluates technical cues in the audiovisual broadcast representative of a content transition, the technical cues including at least one of an empty black frame and an end credits sequence the operational media analyzer further configured to store a timecode position of the content transition, and, when the linear audiovisual broadcast is live, evaluates the technical cues within the receiver-side look‑ahead buffer; an authorization function communicatively coupled to the operational media analyzer to detect the optimal time to pass through or release of the notification from the queue to the end user, wherein the authorization function releases the notification from the que when the linear audiovisual broadcast reaches the timecode position of the content transition the interrupt manager temporarily pauses the audiovisual broadcast.
Whereas Chatterjee’s recording in para 39 and 57 corresponds to an audiovisual buffer coupled to the alert agent for managing interruptions, Chatterjee does not reference “the audiovisual buffer configured to preemptively extract, from within the lookahead buffer, from a portion of the look ahead buffer corresponding to a time interval ahead of a current playback timecode of the linear audiovisual broadcast, a segment of audio output from the linear audiovisual broadcast” in relation to “an audiovisual stream buffer implemented as a receiver‑side look‑ahead buffer of the linear audiovisual broadcast communicatively coupled to the interrupt manager, the audiovisual stream buffer configured to preemptively extract, from within the look-ahead buffer, a segment of audio output from the linear audiovisual broadcast.” With respect to the “the interrupt manager causing the operating system to put focus on the notification message in a foreground state, the operating system moving the paused audiovisual broadcast to a background state during which time the vamping module audibly broadcasts the audio segment until the interrupt manager causes the operating system to return focus to the audiovisual broadcast whereby the audiovisual broadcast resumes the paused audiovisual broadcast which is further brought back into focus in the foreground state, wherein the audiovisual stream buffer is the same receiver‑side look‑ahead buffer that the operational media analyzer evaluates (for a live broadcast) and from which the vamping module outputs the preemptively extracted audio segment” Chatterjee does disclose managing interruptions but does not recite a vamping module wherein Chatterjee teaches causing the system to put focus on the notification in a foreground state, the operating system moving the paused audiovisual broadcast to a background state whereby the audiovisual broadcast resumes the paused audiovisual broadcast which is further brought back into focus in the foreground state (See Chatterjee para 32, 57 the alert may be received as a text banner, pop-up message, chyron, segmented graphic, audio message (e.g. the media content may be paused or silenced to play the message); alerts may be communicated through wired or wireless connections. In one embodiment, the set-top box 304 may temporarily pause streaming media while recording it for subsequent playback in response to communicating the alert. The alert preferences may specify how the alert is displayed to a television or wireless device registered with the set-top box 304 (e.g. entire screen, audio only, video only, partial screen, picture-in-picture, pop up, ticker, overlay, combined methods, etc.)). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that based on Chatterjee para 32, 57, the alert notifications are temporarily displayed in picture-in-picture, pop up, overlay or other method until the media content is resumed and which requires the media content and alert to be simultaneously displayed in either a foreground or background layout and the mere rearrangements of parts is a permutation that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be displayed as a partial screen, picture-in-picture, pop up, ticker, overlay, combined methods, etc.).
Velazquez teaches the deficiency of Chatterjee with respect to the terms “technical cues” wherein Velazquez para 0013, 0015, 0058 teaches identifying visual content transitions when delaying or dismissing alert messages for a selectable or predetermined period or view the alert message at a later time during the transmission of the applicable multimedia program, such as during a commercial or at the end of the program that was being displayed when the EAS message was initially provided. In some embodiments, user input automatically delays EAS messages until the presence of a commercial (or other part of a multimedia program such as the end of the applicable program) is detected. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that any delayed or dismissed alerts/notifications would be presented (i.e., released) when the visual content reaches a commercial and/or end of the program being displayed. Velazquez also teaches a queue for placing alerts and notifications until a determination is made for the optimal time to present said alerts and notifications (para 15). Velazquez also teaches the emergency alerts are also displayed in foreground of the broadcast content as an overlay (see para 12-13, 37-38, 52-53) which is interpreted as placing focus on the broadcast content instead of the alert when the alert is no longer displayed in the foreground (i.e., overlay).
As discussed above, whereas Velazquez teaches technical cues (i.e., identifying visual content transitions when delaying or dismissing alert messages for a selectable or predetermined period or view the alert message at a later time during the transmission of the applicable multimedia program, such as during a commercial or at the end of the program that was being displayed when the EAS message was initially provided (see para 0013, 0015, 0058)), Velazquez does not reference a black frame or an end-credits sequence. The examiner now turns to how the prior art addresses how the prior art dovetails with the teachings of Velazquez for identifying commercials or the end of the program and whether it involves black frame analysis and/or end-credits sequences. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that, at the very least, Velazquez’ invention would need to be able to determine when a commercial will be displayed and/or when the end of the program to occur.
In an analogous art, Dow’s invention dovetails with Velazquez’ and evidences that identifying commercials and the end of the program can be determined based on technical cues analysis wherein Dow teaches identifying commercials/advertisements and/or when the end of the program will occur by analyzing technical cues comprising black fields, end-credits, and title credits (Dow para 53-58, 74) and wherein Dow further teaches buffering content (para 9, 73). Whereas Dow discloses buffering content, the prior art to Gupta discussed below enables a client device to utilize a buffer in a look-ahead manner when utilized as a digital video recorder enabling time shifting of video content (e.g., Gupta col. 9:40-58 and col. 27:1-67 to col. 28:1-24 analyzing live video content in a look-ahead manner when buffered).
Prior art made of record but not relied upon in order to avoid duplicative references all disclose identifying commercials/advertisements and/or when the end of the program will occur by analyzing technical cues comprising black fields, end credits, and title credits: Jojic; Oliver et al. US 20120099795 A1 Jimenez; Eduardo et al. US 10284889 B1 Agnihotri; Lalitha et al. US 6771885 B1; Tzoukermann; Evelyne et al. US 20110211812 A1 (Tzoukermann) teaching identifying visual content transitions using video frame analysis to identify black frames indicating commercial transitions or a program ending and a new program beginning
In continuing with the deficiencies of Chatterjee, in an analogous art, Pierre teaches the deficiency of Chatterjee relating to “the interrupt manager causing the operating system to put focus on the notification message in a foreground state, the operating system moving the paused audiovisual broadcast to a background state” and “until the interrupt manager causes the operating system to return focus to the audiovisual broadcast whereby the audiovisual broadcast resumes the paused audiovisual broadcast which is further brought back into focus in the foreground state” wherein Pierre teaches an invention wherein a broadcast feed provides live programming, prerecorded events and head-end generated or inserted special event notifications to a set top box wherein an incoming message launches a popup application and is processed accordingly to pausing the broadcast presentation to the viewer (para 15-19, 20). More importantly, Pierre teaches that a non-obtrusive event notification may be audio or visual or both to place the notification superimposed over the current program (i.e., corresponds to a notification in a foreground and the current program in the background) wherein the notification will timeout and expire unless it is retried (i.e., corresponds to repeating) comprising adding audio to a visual notification (para 23) wherein para 23 and 29 teach that “playback may be automatically interrupted (i.e., paused) by external events” or may not be paused when displaying the alerts and/or notifications. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred the term “vamping” to correspond to the term vamp which is understood by its dictionary definition as a repeat a short, simple passage of music.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the subject matter of the teachings of Pierre to correspond to providing alerts and notifications during broadcast content and pausing the broadcast content (and as similarly described in para 13, 21-22, 39, 50-57, 62-67 of Chatterjee). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the benefit of analyzing the broadcast content to identify evaluate whether the content comprises alerts and/or notifications. In the prior art to Gupta, the prior art recognizes the benefit of analyzing the audio of broadcast content to identify alerts and/or notifications (col. 28:10-35) and Gupta also teaches buffering content to analyze whether frames in the broadcast content comprise important content as described in Gupta’s specification (col. 33:22-51). As discussed above, whereas Dow disclosed buffering content, the prior art to Gupta dovetails with the teachings of Dow to enable a client device to utilize a buffer in a look-ahead manner when utilized as a digital video recorder enabling time shifting of video content (e.g., Gupta col. 9:40-58 and col. 27:1-67 to col. 28:1-24 analyzing live video content in a look-ahead manner when buffered).
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the benefit of a vamping module for extracting audio related to the received broadcast content in order to repeatedly presented the extracted audio content in a vamping fashion when the broadcast content is paused as disclosed in the prior art to Abecassis teaching the deficiency of Chatterjee (col. 53:37-67 to col. 55:1-59 and col. 77:59-67 to col. 80:1-29– providing a continuous audio loop obtained from the video segment displayed during a pause function).
Examiner’s Note: Prior art recited cited but not relied upon in order to avoid duplicative references - Tzoukermann; Evelyne et al. US 20110211812 A1 (Tzoukermann) teaching identifying visual content transitions using video frame analysis to identify black frames indicating commercial transitions or a program ending and a new program beginning.
The motivation to modify the teachings of Chatterjee, Velazquez, and Dow is further evidenced by Zhang. For example, whereas the teachings of Chatterjee discussed above disclose analyzing the media content as it is being delivered or in advance (Chatterjee para 13, 55-57, 59), Zhang teaches analyzing media content to determine breakpoints which specify timestamps within the duration of the media item where playback of the media item can be halted, and where digital components can be presented. See Zhang para 12-13, 22-23, 28, 32, 40, 67-68, 72. Whereas applicant recites the limitation relating to identifying and storing a timecode position of the content transition when the linear audiovisual broadcast is live, evaluates the technical cues within the receiver-side look-ahead buffer, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have seen the obvious benefit of analyzing live media broadcast in time-shifted viewing (e.g., DVR/PVR) as disclosed in Chatterjee and Dow by further enabling the client device to analyze the time-shifted content store in a buffer in order to identify those locations within the media item at which breakpoint insertion is appropriate (e.g., where the breakpoint will be least disruptive to users viewing the media item) as disclosed in Zhang. More importantly, Zhang paragraph [0067-0068] teaches digital component(s) are provided to a client device (260) wherein in some implementations, the digital components are provided for presentation at the client device when playback of the media item reaches a given breakpoint among the final set of breakpoints stored for the media item. Furthermore, Zhang states that at least one of the digital components is not included in the media item which a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that at least some digital components are included in the media item.
In an analogous art, Jerding provides a motivation of displaying a notification message generated by an external event in combination with audio from the broadcast television content comprising advertisements wherein Jerding teaches presenting notification messages without overriding the audio of the current service (col. 9 Table 2 and col. 5:50-67 to col. 7:1-56). See also prior art made of record but not relied upon to avoid duplicative references - Pentland; Joseph D. US 20060130100 A1 discussing displaying advertisements and notification messages. As such, outputting the audio segment comprising audio from the linear audiovisual broadcast that occurs subsequent to the detected content transmission to be presented along with the notification message as recited as part of the “vamping module.” A person of ordinary skill in the art, based on information gleaned from the prior art would have reasonably inferred that the pausing of broadcast content and presentation of audio may last until the end of the notification message and resumption of the broadcast content (i.e., audibly broadcasts the audio segment until the interrupt manager causes the operating system to return focus to the audiovisual broadcast whereby the audiovisual broadcast resumes the paused audiovisual broadcast).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chatterjee’s operational media analysis software to retrieve data from the media content that will be utilized by an alert agent to determine whether the programming content should be interrupted by presenting alerts notifications temporarily displayed in picture-in-picture, pop up, overlay or other method until the media content is resumed and which requires the media content and alert to be simultaneously displayed by further incorporating known elements of Velazquez for identifying visual content transitions when delaying or dismissing alert messages for a selectable or predetermined period or view the alert message at a later time during the transmission of the applicable multimedia program, such as during a commercial or at the end of the program that was being displayed when the alert/notification message was initially provided because Dow recognizes the benefit of identifying commercials and the end of the program based on technical cues analysis wherein Dow teaches identifying commercials/advertisements and/or when the end of the program will occur by analyzing technical cues comprising black fields, end credits because a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the benefit of preventing notifications when a user’s cognitive load is higher as compared to points in time during a program presentation indicating a user has a lower cognitive load when utilizing a playback device to view message notifications during commercials or the end of a video program. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chatterjee, Velazquez, and Dow by further incorporating elements of Pierre’s invention comprising a broadcast feed providing live programming, prerecorded events and head-end generated or inserted special event notifications to a set top box wherein an incoming message launches a popup application and is processed accordingly to pause the broadcast presentation to the viewer and displaying a non-obtrusive event notification superimposed over the current program (i.e., corresponds to a notification in a foreground and the current program in the background) wherein the notification will timeout and expire unless it is retried (i.e., corresponds to repeating/vamping) comprising adding audio to a visual notification such that “playback may be automatically interrupted (i.e., paused) by external events” or may not be paused when displaying the alerts and/or notifications because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred the term “vamping” to correspond to the term vamp which is understood by its dictionary definition as a repeat a short, simple passage of music based on the prior art teachings to Gupta (i.e., the prior art recognizes the benefit of analyzing the audio of broadcast content to identify alerts and/or notifications and also teaches buffering content to analyze whether frames in the broadcast content comprise have important content). Furthermore, Abecassis teaches providing a continuous audio loop obtained from the video segment displayed during a pause function. The motivation to modify Chatterjee, Velazquez, Dow, Pierre with the teachings of Gupta and Abecassis for an invention that displays notification messages during the presentation of commercials and/or the end of a video program is further evidenced with Jerding and Zhang which teaches displaying a notification message generated by an external event in combination with audio from the broadcast television content comprising advertisements wherein Jerding teaches presenting notification messages without overriding the audio of the current service and Zhang teaches analyzing media content to determine breakpoints which specify timestamps within the duration of the media item where playback of the media item can be halted, and where digital components can be presented such that combining Gupta and Abecassis would enable the presentation of the current service and the notification message at a point in the program where a commercial with an audio loop that is presented in a paused state along with the audio portion extracted from the current service to be presented the audio loop because Jerding teaches presenting the message notification along with the audio of the current service to be performed when to client device is programmed to not be allowed to override the audio of the current service and Zhang teaches identifying timestamped locations (e.g., breakpoints) within the media item at which breakpoint insertion is appropriate (e.g., where the breakpoint will be least disruptive to users viewing the media item).
Regarding claim 2, “wherein the vamping module constructs a loop of media content from the extracted segment of the media broadcast at the time the interrupt manager releases the interrupt notification, and the operating system puts focus on the interrupt notification, with the media broadcast moving to a background and the vamping module audibly broadcasting the loop of media content in the background until the operating system returns focus to the media broadcast, allowing the media broadcast to resume at a timecode in the media broadcast equal to that when the media broadcast moved to the background” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 wherein Abecassis teaches col. 53:37-67 to col. 55:1-59 and col. 78:22-67 to col. 80:1-29– providing a continuous audio loop obtained from the video segment displayed during a pause function wherein audio is associated with the paused frame); see also col. 21:62-67 to col. 22:1-13 and col. 48:9-23 frames are identified based on frame numbers, any timing or logging format corresponds to identifying position when replay or pause occurs in order to resume from paused position.
Regarding claim 3, “further comprising applying a visual effect to the media broadcast when the media broadcast is in the background state” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-2 wherein Abecassis col. 78:22-67 to col. 80:1-29 teaches paused video is displayed in one of a plurality of visual effects (blank screen, neutral image, or informational data. See also Chatterjee para 32, 57 the alert may be received as a text banner, pop-up message, chyron, segmented graphic, audio message (e.g. the media content may be paused or silenced to play the message); alerts may be communicated through wired or wireless connections. In one embodiment, the set-top box 304 may temporarily pause streaming media while recording it for subsequent playback in response to communicating the alert. The alert preferences may specify how the alert is displayed to a television or wireless device registered with the set-top box 304 (e.g. entire screen, audio only, video only, partial screen, picture-in-picture, pop up, ticker, overlay, combined methods, etc.)).
Regarding claim 4, “wherein the visual effect is selected from the group consisting of colorization and animation” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-3 wherein Abecassis col. 78:22-67 to col. 80:1-29 teaches paused video is displayed in one of a plurality of visual effects (blank screen, neutral image, or informational data. See also Chatterjee para 32, 57 the alert may be received as a text banner, pop-up message, chyron, segmented graphic, audio message (e.g. the media content may be paused or silenced to play the message); alerts may be communicated through wired or wireless connections. In one embodiment, the set-top box 304 may temporarily pause streaming media while recording it for subsequent playback in response to communicating the alert. The alert preferences may specify how the alert is displayed to a television or wireless device registered with the set-top box 304 (e.g. entire screen, audio only, video only, partial screen, picture-in-picture, pop up, ticker, overlay, combined methods, etc.)).
Regarding claim 5, “wherein the vamping module audibly broadcasts the audio segment at a reduced volume in the background compared to the volume when in focus in the operating system” is further rejected on obviousness grounds as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-3 wherein Abecassis col. 78:22-67 to col. 801-29 teaches lowering the audio associated with the video if the communication comprises a sound element.
Regarding system claims 6-12 and 19, the claims are grouped and rejected with the system claims 1-5 because the elements of the system are met by the disclosure of the apparatus and methods of the reference(s) as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-5 and because the elements of the system are easily converted into elements of computer implemented system by one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to claims 7-11, Abecassis teaches col. 53:37-67 to col. 55:1-59 and col. 78:22-67 to col. 80:1-29– providing a continuous audio loop obtained from the video segment displayed during a pause function wherein audio is associated with the paused frame; upon resumption of the paused video, the video and audio components are resynchronized and provides a seamless looping of the audio; Abecassis is able to distinguish active and passive audio elements to isolate and remove vocals from the background audio and only play music and wherein audio tracks are separately recorded as discussed in col. 53:37-67 to col. 55:1-59. The combination of Chatterjee, and Abecassis render obvious the presentation of paused video content comprising video segments of different lengths including but not limited to static images, particular sequence of frames taken from the video segment pause point, segment in some direct proportion to the duration of the pause, collectively reads on the excursion module of claim 11 wherein Abecassis will change the paused state after a particular estimated interrupt duration (Abecassis col. 78:22-67 to col. 80:1-29). With respect to claim 12, the combination of prior art as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 render obvious the limitation when disclosing that alerts and notifications are presented to a timed period and the notification will time out (See Pierre teaches that a non-obtrusive event notification may be audio or visual or both to place the notification superimposed over the current program (i.e., corresponds to a notification in a foreground and the current program in the background) wherein the notification will timeout and expire unless it is retried (i.e., corresponds to repeating) comprising adding audio to a visual notification (para 23) wherein para 23 and 29 teach that “playback may be automatically interrupted (i.e., paused) by external events” or may not be paused when displaying the alerts and/or notifications. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred the term “vamping” to correspond to the term vamp which is understood by its dictionary definition as a repeat a short, simple passage of music.”).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C Chatterjee; Koushik et al. US 20140282705 A1 (hereafter Chatterjee) and in further view of Velazquez; Leonardo et al. US 20100138858 A1 (hereafter Velazquez) and in further view of Dow, Christopher et al. US 20030202772 A1 (hereafter Dow) and in further view of PIERRE LUDOVIC et al. EP 1436986 B2 (hereafter Pierre) and in further view of Gupta; Vikram Makam et al. US9615124B1 (hereafter Gupta) and in further view of Abecassis; Max US 6504990 B1 (hereafter Abecassis) and in further view of Zhang; Wenbo et al. US 20210390130 A1 (hereafter Zhang) and in further view of Jerding; Dean F. et al. US 7308697 B1 (hereafter Jerding) and in further view of Brown; Matthew I. et al. US 20170068511 A1 (hereafter Brown).
Regarding claim 13, “wherein an excursion module applies image and video processing synthesis mechanisms and rules inherent in a computer graphics processor in the device and a game engine operating on the device to generate an excursion for interactive digital imagery or audio, induces a pause in the activities of interactive virtual characters or objects and instigates a contextually correlated animation indicating an intention to pause, guides the duration of excursions based on an estimated interrupt duration if available or maintains a minimal length, and structures a series of brief excursions that mimic a perception of a continuous longer excursion capable of termination at any point in the series” the combination of Chatterjee, Velazquez, Pierre, Gupta , Abecassis, and Zhang are silent with respect to a game engine induces a pause in the activities of interactive virtual characters or objects and instigates a contextually correlated animation indicating an intention to pause, guides the duration of excursions based on an estimated interrupt duration if available or maintains a minimal length, and structures a series of brief excursions that mimic a perception of a continuous longer excursion capable of termination at any point in the series.
In an analogous art, Brown para 79 teaches a graphics module displays any object including animations; para 280-290 performs the claimed functions in relation to pause features for media content wherein the functions generates interactive digital imagery or audio, induces a pause in the activities of interactive virtual characters or objects and instigates a contextually correlated animation indicating an intention to pause, guides the duration of excursions based on an estimated interrupt duration if available or maintains a minimal length, and structures a series of brief excursions that mimic a perception of a continuous longer excursion capable of termination at any point in the series. Brown teaches “…during this exemplary paused mode, a count-down clock 588 is displayed over the media item displayed in video playback view 500 (e.g., over a still image or frame representative of the point in the video where it was paused). In some embodiments, count-down clock 588 is translucent or partially transparent. In some embodiments, while the media item is displayed during a paused mode, one or more still images 590 are displayed overlaid over the media item. In some embodiments, still images 590 include representative frames selected from a predefined time interval before the point in the media item where it was paused. For example, still images 590 include four frames of dramatic or interesting scenes from within the five minutes of the movie preceding the current paused point in the playback of the movie.[0287] FIG. 5PP illustrates that in some embodiments, display of count-down clock 588 includes display of an animation corresponding to a predefined time interval before another exemplary paused state or another exemplary representation of the paused state is displayed (e.g., a screensaver or slideshow). In some embodiments, if a user input is detected before the predefined time interval represented by count-down clock 588 elapses, the playback of the media item resumes, whereas, in some embodiments, the progression of the count-down clock 588 pauses (e.g., for a predefined time, or indefinitely) until another user input is detected corresponding to a request to resume playback of the media item.”
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chatterjee, Velazquez, Dow, Pierre, Gupta and Abecassis, Zhang and Jerding as discussed in the rejection of independent claim 1 by further incorporating known elements of Brown for displaying pause functionalities of media content comprising a graphics module displays any object including animations because the functions disclosed by Brown provide interactive content to keep a user engaged during the pausing of media content (e.g., wherein the functions generates interactive digital imagery or audio including induces a pause in the activities of interactive virtual characters or objects and instigates a contextually correlated animation indicating an intention to pause guides the duration of excursions based on an estimated interrupt duration if available or maintains a minimal length, and structures a series of brief excursions that mimic a perception of a continuous longer excursion capable of termination at any point in the series because Brown teaches that while the media item is displayed during a paused mode a display of count-down clock includes display of an animation corresponding to a predefined time interval before another exemplary paused state or another exemplary representation of the paused state is displayed (e.g., a screensaver or slideshow); if a user input is detected before the predefined time interval represented by count-down clock elapses, the playback of the media item resumes, whereas, in some embodiments, the progression of the count-down clock pauses (e.g., for a predefined time, or indefinitely) until another user input is detected corresponding to a request to resume playback of the media item.)
CONCLUSION
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALFONSO CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3950. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10am to 6pm.
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. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALFONSO CASTRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421