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 Amendment
The amendments, filed 10/28/2025, have been entered and made of record. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See the response sets forth below.
Applicant states, “Grove makes no mention of considering the contents of a closed captioning stream when a replay command is received to determine the amount of time to shift back for replay.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Examiner is unbale to find support for such disclosure or feature in the present application specification. Paragraph 0038 of the present application merely discloses presenting closed captioning data corresponding to the audio stream that are presented. “If applicable, the presentation module 308 also presents the closed captioning data 314 corresponding to the portions of the audio stream316 that are presented to the user 106.” Similarly, Paragraph 0061 discloses controlling the closed caption data with the same command.
[0061] In some embodiments, whenever the audio stream is controlled, the closed captioned stream can be controlled with the same commands and at the same time as the audio stream. For example, when the audio stream is time shifted from a first time to a second time, the closed-captioned stream can also be time shifted from the first time to the second time concurrently with the audio stream.
Paragraph 0075 discloses ‘when rewinding the audio stream, the audible words are presented in reverse order. Paragraph 0076 discloses the speed of the audio stream may be played at a slower or faster speed.
[0076] In yet another embodiment, audio is repeated with displayed closed captioning data. For example, if a repeat function is activated (e.g., hitting a button on a remote control to repeat the recently played audio), the result is that the audio will be played for the closed captioning data displayed on the screen. For example, if an audio stream is being played from a first time to a second time and the words of a corresponding closed caption function (i.e., having frames that correspond to frames of the audio stream) from the first time to the second time, once the user activates the repeat function, the system identifies the time of the first word and the last word currently displayed at the third time (in this example, that is the first time and second time respectively), time shifts the audio stream to the first time and plays the audio stream from the first time to the second time. The speed of the audio stream may be played at a slower or faster speed as well.
However, none of the above paragraphs nor the rest of the paragraphs disclose the feature of “considering the contents of a closed captioning stream when a replay command is received to determine the amount of time to shift.”
Second, the applied prior art of Grove discloses in col. 21 lines 37-45 configuring the set-top box to accelerate or decelerate closed captioning associated with a recorded program based on modification in the playback speed of the recorded program. Hence, the system is able to identify the time of the text (closed caption) data corresponding to the audio stream when the user activates an accelerate or decelerate command. Furthermore, Grove discloses the device is configured to replay recent portions of a live program by storing recent portions of the live program into a buffer as the live program plays in real time (see col. 4 lines 36-53); a program may represent text, closed captioning, music, etc. (see col. 13 line 56-col. 14 line 5).
Applicant states, “none of the portions of Grove describe or suggest the features of claim 2.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to the claim, the said first time corresponds to the beginning of the closed caption text data (not what is displayed currently but the beginning of it). Hence, the first time corresponds to the first closed caption or the beginning of the closed caption data that corresponds to the second time (or the beginning of the second time). In other words, the first caption is the beginning of the second caption. Grove discloses aligning close captioning with accelerated or decelerated audio (see col. 21 lines 37-45).
Applicant states, “none of these portions of Grove (or any other part of Grove) describe or suggest time shifting the audio stream to a first time that corresponds to a time of a first word that was in the closed captioned stream corresponding to the audio stream when the time- shifting input was received. Grove makes no mention of considering the words in a closed captioned stream when a replay command is received to determine the time to shift back to for replay.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In col. 21 lines 37-45 Grove specifically discloses configuring the computing device to accelerate or decelerate closed captioning associated with recorded program based on modification in the playback speed of the recorded program; aligning the closed captioning with the modified audio.
Applicant states, “[u]nlike Grove, with the present application, the amount of time to shift back for the time shift may be variable as (with regard to claim 11) it depends on the time of a first word that was in the closed captioned stream corresponding to the audio stream when the input was received.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. See the responses above.
Applicant states the sited, “portions of Grove do not describe or suggest pausing the data stream with the video data at the second time (when the time shifting input is received) until the data stream with the audio data is replayed to the second time, as claimed in claim 19.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Grove discloses an interactive menu which enables the user to select separate playback speeds for the video and corresponding audio components of a program. Hence, when the audio is time shifted, the video is controlled separately or have separate playback mode. See also col. 19 lines 12-15 where the applied prior art discloses various components and during operation, respective components of the computing device may process the program according to the inputs specifying request changes.
In regard to claims 7-9, Applicant states, “replaying audio in a secondary language different from the first language that was played at first; and replaying the last 15 seconds of content in different language, these features do not overcome the deficiencies of Grove and are not commensurate with the features recited in claim 7.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 7 recites the audio stream comprises a first language audio stream and a second language audio stream, the first language audio stream being an audio stream playing a first language and the second language audio stream being an audio stream playing a second language different from the first language, wherein the playing comprises playing the first language audio stream and the video stream from the first time to the second time, wherein the input to time shift the audio stream to the first time comprises an input to play the second language audio stream from the first time to the second time, and wherein the replaying comprises playing the second language audio stream from the first time to the second time.
Trivedi discloses providing content in a secondary language and when replaying audio in a secondary language that is different from the first language which was played at a particular point in time. Trivedi further discloses replaying 15 seconds of content in different language. Therefore, the Trivedi teaches the claimed feature.
In view of the above, the Examiner believes the applied prior art teaches the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above and as stated in the Office Action below.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recites the feature of “the first time is determined based on closed captioned text that was in the closed captioned stream corresponding to the audio stream at the second time.” Applicant further sates the cited feature is corresponds to “the contents of a closed captioning stream when a replay command is received to determine the amount of time to shift back for replay.” However, the present application specification fails to specifically disclose the features of “the first time is determined based on closed captioned text that was in the closed captioned stream corresponding to the audio stream at the second time.” See the response above.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims and hereby are rejected as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 10-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grove et al. (US Pat. No. 9, 451, 328 hereinafter referred as Grove).
Regarding claim 1, Grove discloses a method comprising:
receiving, over a network, an audio stream, a closed-captioned stream, and a video stream (see figure 1, STB 102 and col. 16 lines 48-58, relay incoming media signals);
playing the audio stream and the video stream from a first time to a second time (see col. 9 lines 65-col. 10 line 2 providing programs in standard presentation mode);
receiving, at the second time, input to time shift the audio stream to the first time, wherein the first time is determined based on closed captioned text that was in the closed-captioned stream corresponding to the audio stream at the second time (see col. 4 lines 44-45, replay recent portions of a live program; see col. 5 lines 34-55 interactive menu enable a user to select a repeat option and/or a reverse option; selecting separate playback speeds for audio; see col. 7 lines 33-42 shifting audio; see col. 9 line 65-col. 10 line 2; various playback modes; see col. 21 lines 27-45; decelerate closed captioning ;
after receiving the input to time shift the audio stream, time shifting the audio stream to the first time (see figure 6, controlling audio and video presentation separately; see col. 4 lines 44-45, replay recent portions of a live program; see col. 5 lines 34-55 interactive menu enable a user to select a repeat option and/or a reverse option; see col. 20 lines 61-67 playing video in one mode and playing audio in different mode; see col. 23 lines 46-60 playing back buffered audio); and
replaying the audio stream from the first time to the second time (see figure 6, provide the processed video component and the processed corresponding audio component a selected playback speed; see col. 4 lines 44-45, replay recent portions of a live program; see col. 5 lines 34-55 interactive menu enable a user to select a repeat option and/or a reverse option; see col. 7 lines 9-11 one or more shifts between audio and video; see col. 18 lines 49-56). See also the response above.
Regarding claim 2, Grove discloses the first time corresponds with a beginning of closed captioned text that was displayed on a screen at the second time, and wherein the audio stream is time shifted to the first time independent of the video stream (see col. 21 lines 4-14 selecting playback speed for portions; see col. 20 lines 61-67 playing video in one mode and audio in another; see col. 4 lines 44-45 replaying portion; see col. 5 lines 34-55 user selecting reverse mode option; see col. 21 lines 37-44 the closed captioning align with decelerate or accelerate audio; and col. 23 lines 42-67 and col. 19 lines 12-15). See also the response above.
Regarding claim 3, Grove discloses the time shifting the audio stream to the first time comprises, at the second time, pausing the video stream, wherein the video stream is paused from when the audio stream is time shifted to the first time until the audio stream is replayed to the second time (see col. 2 lines 4-14 and 37-46).
Regarding claim 4, Grove discloses after the replaying the audio stream from the first time to the second time while the video stream is paused at the second time, resuming playing the audio stream and the video stream from the second time (see col. 2 lines 37-46).
Regarding claim 5, Grove discloses after receiving the input to time shift the audio stream to the first time, time shifting the video stream to the first time along with the audio stream, wherein the replaying the audio stream from the first time to the second time includes replaying both the audio stream and video stream concurrently at a different speed (see figure 6; col. 23 lines 34-60 and also col. 6 lines 17-45).
Regarding claim 6, Grove discloses when replaying the audio stream from the first time to the second time, concurrently playing the closed-captioned stream from the first time to the second time (see col. 21 lines 4-14 and 33-45 and also col. 2 lines 37-46).
Regarding claim 10, Grove discloses pausing the video stream at the second time while replaying the audio stream concurrently with the closed-captioned stream from the first time to the second time (see col. 4 lines 44-45; see col. 5 lines 34-55; see col. 20 lines 61-67 playing video in one mode and audio in another; see also col. 21 lines 4-14).
Regarding claim 11, Grove discloses a system comprising one or more processors (see figure 2) configured to:
receive an audio stream, a closed-captioned stream, and a video stream (see rejection of claim 1 above);
play the audio stream and the video stream concurrently from a first time to a second time at a first speed (see col. 9 line 65-col. 10 line 2 providing programs in standard presentation mode);
receive input to time shift the audio stream and the closed captioned stream to the first time, wherein the first time corresponds to a time of a first word that was in the closed captioned stream corresponding to the audio stream when the input was received (see col. 4 lines 44-45, replay recent portions of a live program; see col. 5 lines 34-55 interactive menu enable a user to select a repeat option and/or a reverse option; selecting separate playback speeds for audio; see col. 7 lines 33-42 shifting audio; see col. 9 line 65-col. 10 line 2; various playback modes and col. 21 lines 37-45);
time shift the audio stream and closed captioned stream to the first time (see figure 6, provide the processed video component and the processed corresponding audio component a selected playback speed; see col. 4 lines 44-45, replay recent portions of a live program; see col. 5 lines 34-55 interactive menu enable a user to select a repeat option and/or a reverse option; see col. 7 lines 9-11 one or more shifts between audio and video; see col. 18 lines 49-56 and col. 21 lines 37-45); and
replay the audio stream concurrently with the closed-captioned stream from the first time to the second time at a second speed different than the first speed (see figure 6; col. 9 line 65-col. 10 line 2, col. 34-67 and col. 21 lines 37-45). See also the response above.
Regarding claim 12, Grove discloses the input to time shift is received independent of the video stream, and in response to receiving the input to time shift, the one or more processors are configured to pause the video stream until the audio stream and the closed-captioned stream are replayed to the second time (see col. 2 lines 4-14 and 37-46).
Regarding claim 13, Grove discloses after replaying the audio stream and the closed-captioned stream from the first time to the second time while the video stream is paused, play the audio stream and video stream concurrently from the second time at the first speed (see figure 6; col. 23 lines 34-60 and also col. 6 lines 17-45).
Regarding claim 14, Grove discloses a memory communicatively coupled to the one or more processors (see figure 2), wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: decode and store the audio stream in the memory so that the audio stream is controllable independently of the video stream (see figure 6 and col. 23 lines 42-67).
Regarding claim 15, Grove discloses the one or more processors are further configured to: play the closed-captioned stream at the same speed as the audio stream (see col. 21 lines 4-14 and 33-45 and also col. 2 lines 37-46).
Regarding claim 19, the limitation of claim 11 can be found in claims 1 and 10-11. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 1 and 10-11.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 5 above.
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 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grove et al. (US PG PUB 9, 451, 328) in view of Trivedi et al. (US PG PUB 2023/0107968 hereinafter referred as Trivedi).
Regarding claim 7, although Grove teaches the limtiaotn of claim 1, Grove fails to specifically teach the audio stream comprises a first language audio stream and a second language audio stream, the first language audio stream being an audio stream playing a first language and the second language audio stream being an audio stream playing a second language different from the first language, wherein the playing comprises playing the first language audio stream and the video stream from the first time to the second time, wherein the input to time shift the audio stream to the first time comprises an input to play the second language audio stream from the first time to the second time, and wherein the replaying comprises playing the second language audio stream from the first time to the second time.
In the same field of endeavor Trivedi the audio stream comprises a first language audio stream and a second language audio stream, the first language audio stream being an audio stream playing a first language and the second language audio stream being an audio stream playing a second language different from the first language, wherein the playing comprises playing the first language audio stream and the video stream from the first time to the second time, wherein the input to time shift the audio stream to the first time comprises an input to play the second language audio stream from the first time to the second time, and wherein the replaying comprises playing the second language audio stream from the first time to the second time (see paragraphs 0011-0014, 0026, 0048 and 0053 a portion of a content item in a secondary language; replaying audio in a secondary language different from the first language that was played at first; replaying the last 15 seconds of content in different language).
Therefore, in light of the teaching in Trivedi it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grove by specifically adding multiple languages streaming via the STB and replaying audio in different language in order to give a user a learning experience and provide content in selected languages.
Regarding claim 8, Trivedi discloses playing the second language audio stream comprises playing the second language audio stream while playing closed captioned text in the second language (see paragraphs 0048-0049 and 0053). The motivation to combine has been discussed in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 9, Trivedi discloses playing the closed-captioned stream in the first language from the first time to the second time concurrently with the playing the second language audio stream from the first time to the second time (see paragraphs 0003, 0048-0051). The motivation to combine has been discussed in claim 6 above.
Claims 16-18 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 7-9 respectively.
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 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
February 26, 2026