DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments, filed 03/23/2026, have been entered and made of record. Claims 21-40 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-40 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection sets forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 23-28, 30-35 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggal et al. (US Pat. No. 10, 169, 782 hereinafter referred as Duggal) in view of Guo et al. (US Pat. No. 10, 003, 842 hereinafter referred as Guo).
Regarding claim 21, Duggal discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining, at a network-accessible service via one or more programmatic interfaces,
one or more guidelines for selecting segments of a video that are to be included in a preview of the video (see col. 4 lines 19-27 the ad management system can select and serve a version of an advertisement that highlights features of the product that statistics or experience indicate typically interests teenagers; determining that a second user from the same close-knit group is an adult, the ad management system can select and serve a version of the same advertisement that highlights features of the product that statistics or experience indicate typically interests adults; see col. 4 line 53-col. 5 line 9, determining features of a product or service a user is interested in based on the timing or location of an engagement with the advertisement; for instance, the ad management system can identify specific portions of the advertisement (e.g., a specific frame or time in a video) when a user engages an advertisement, then identify which feature(s) of an advertised product or service corresponded to the portion of the advertisement that the user engaged; see col. 6 lines 24-51 identifying characteristics of content from a content provider; see col. 5 lines 23-38 and col. 6 line 65-col. 7 line 7, content providers providing digital content including video; see col. 9 lines 37-51 selecting advertisement; see col. 25 line 65-col 6 line 10 selecting an advertisement based on age profile; see col. 27 lines 49-62 selecting targeted advertisement from a pre-made set of advertisement; based on age profile of the third client device by selecting a version of the advertisement that highlights specific features of the same product; see also col. 6 lines 24-51 and figure 7);
generating, by the network-accessible service, a particular preview of the video
based at least in part on the one or more guidelines, wherein generating the particular preview includes: selecting one or more segments from the video to be included in the particular preview of the video based, at least in part, on the one or more guidelines (see figures 5 and 6, col. 33 lines 30-31 customizing content based on user’s interest, age and/or device type and figures 5 and 6; see also the reasons in the previous Office Action); and
causing the particular preview to be presented to one or more consumers (see col. 12 lines 3-27 playing video; col. 28 lines 29-45 and col. 29 lines 1-8 selected portions presented).
Claim 21 differs from Duggal in that the claim further requires selecting one or more further segments from the video to be excluded from the particular preview of the video based, at least in part, one or more guidelines.
In the same field of endeavor Guo discloses selecting one or more further segments from the video to be excluded from the particular preview of the video based, at least in part, one or more guidelines (col. 8 line 61-col. 9 line 7 excluding uninteresting video frames from the candidate segments).
Therefore, in light of the teaching in Guo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Duggal by specifically adding the feature of excluding segments from the particular preview in order to make the preview more attractive and to exclude slow-frame activity.
Regarding claim 23, Duggal discloses the one or more guidelines indicate a type of device expected to be used to watch the preview, and wherein the particular preview is generated based at least in part on the type of device (see col. 9 lines 37-51; col. 14 lines 46-59 and col. 31 lines 48-58).
Regarding claim 24, Duggal discloses the one or more guidelines indicate a type of target audience, and wherein the particular preview is generated based at least in part on the type of target audience (see col. 14 lines 46-59; col. 26 lines 25-37; col. 27 lines 22-33 and 49-62).
Regarding claim 25, Duggal discloses the one or more guidelines indicate a sequence in which video segments of a plurality of segment types are to be arranged in the preview, and wherein in the particular preview, a first segment of a first segment type is presented, in accordance with the sequence, prior to a second segment of a second segment type (see col. 8 lines 14-30; col. 20 lines 19-28 and also col. 4 line 53-col. 5 line 9).
Regarding claim 26, Duggal discloses generating the particular preview comprises: extracting, from respective segments of the video, respective emotion-related features; and including, in the particular preview, a particular segment based at least in part on an emotion-related feature extracted from the particular segment (see col. 4 lines 19-37; col. 6 lines 24-51 and col. 9 lines 37-51).
Regarding claim 27, Duggal discloses determining a metric of similarity between a particular segment of the video and a plot summary of the video; and including, in the particular preview, the particular segment based at least in part on the metric (see col. 16 line 62-col. 17 line 17).
Regarding claim 28, the limitation of claim 28 can be found in claim 21 above. Therefore claim 28 is analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 21 above. See also claim 12 of the prior art.
Claims 30-34 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 23-27 respectively above.
Regarding claim 35, the limitation of claim 35 can be found in claim 21 above. Therefore claim 35 is analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 21 above. See also claim 14 of the prior art.
Claims 37-40 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 23-26 respectively above.
Claims 22, 29 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggal et al. (US Pat. No. 10, 169, 782) in view of Guo et al. (US Pat. No. 10, 003, 842 hereinafter referred as Guo) and further in view of Ray et al. (US Pat. No. 10, 417, 500 hereinafter referred as Ray).
Regarding claim 22, although the combination of Duggal and Guo discloses the limitation of claim 21 and gathering statistical data (see col. 16 line 62-col. 17 line 13 of Duggal’s), the combination specifically fails to disclose utilizing machine learning model(s).
In the same field of endeavor Ray discloses utilizing machine learning model(s) (see col. 6 lines 36-49 and col. 21 lines 26-43 using machine learning software and topic modeling analysis; see col. 26 line 50-col. 27 line 7 selecting highlight based on viewer).
Therefore, in light of the teaching in Ray 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 above combination by utilizing machine learning software when generating preview in order to avoid overfitting or underfitting with quick algorithm.
Claims 29 and 36 are rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 22 above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,910,073. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the Patent application claim 6 recites a computer-implemented method, comprising: extracting, from individual ones of a plurality of segments of a video for which a preview is to be generated automatically, a respective set of features, including at least a first emotion-related feature associated with analysis of visual content of a segment and a second emotion-related feature associated with analysis of audio content of the segment; selecting a subset of segments of the plurality of segments using at least some features of the respective sets of features and a collection of filtering criteria, wherein the collection of filtering criteria includes at least one emotion-based filtering criterion; assigning, to individual segments of the subset, respective weighted preview-suitability scores using a combination of metrics, wherein the combination of metrics includes a first metric of similarity between the individual segments and a plot summary of the video; and combining, using at least the respective weighted preview-suitability scores, at least some segments of the subset to generate a first proposed preview for the video.
Regarding claim 23, the patent application claim 14 recites the limitation of claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, the patent application claim 15 recites the limitation of claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, the patent application claim 8 recites the limitation of claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, the patent application claim 6 recites the limitation of claim 26.
Regarding claim 27, the patent application claim 6 recites the limitation of claim 27.
Regarding claims 28-29, the patent application claims 1 and 6 recite the limitation of claims 28-29.
Regarding claim 30, the patent application claim 14 recites the limitation of claim 30.
Regarding claim 31, the patent application claim 15 recites the limitation of claim 31.
Regarding claim 32, the patent application claim 8 recites the limitation of claim 32.
Regarding claim 33, the patent application claim 6 recites the limitation of claim 33.
Regarding claim 34, the patent application claims 3 and 6 recite the limitation of claim 34.
Regarding claim 35, the patent application claims 6 and 16 recite the limitation of claim 35.
Regarding claim 36, the patent application claim 18 recites the limitation of claim 36.
Regarding claim 37, the patent application claim 14 recites the limitation of claim 37.
Regarding claim 38, the patent application claim 15 recites the limitation of claim 38.
Regarding claim 39, the patent application claim 8 recites the limitation of claim 39.
Regarding claim 40, the patent application claims 6 recites the limitation of claim 40.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN SHIBRU whose telephone number is (571)272-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, THAI TRAN can be reached at 571 272 7382. 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.
/HELEN SHIBRU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484 May 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights