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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 51-70 pending.
Claims 51 and 61 amended.
Claims 1-50 cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/6/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 51-70 have been considered but are moot because the amended claims are rejected under a new ground of rejection.
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.
6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 51-54, 56-64 and 66-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major (US 2019/0342607), hereinafter referred to as Major, in view of Gupta (US 2019/0130655), hereinafter referred to as Gupta, in further view of Lee (US 2010/0186026), hereinafter referred to as Lee, in further view of Mathews (2018/0205990), hereinafter referred to as Mathews.
8. Regarding claims 51 and 61, Major discloses a method comprising: accessing a data structure that defines a viewership score for each portion of a plurality of portions of a media asset, wherein the viewership score for a respective portion of the plurality of portions of the media asset is based on a number of user interface interactions received during consumption of the respective portion of the media asset from a plurality of devices (paragraph 70 wherein content source communicates with content management system (or another appropriate service) via network or the like to update viewership database);
identifying a particular portion of the plurality of portions that is assigned a peak viewership score in the data structure relative to viewership scores assigned to other portions of the media asset (paragraphs 76 wherein requests may also be indicative of the number of viewers who are actually watching the ad, as opposed to the number of viewers who simply record the program (without watching it), or who skip over the ads during playback);
while a user device is generating for display the particular portion of the media asset, identifying a supplemental content for display on the user device based on a user profile associated with the user device and metadata of the particular portion of the media asset (paragraphs 23 and 57-58 wherein identification by a content aggregator can be more reliable and more flexible than prior techniques that relied upon programming schedules or metadata in the program stream, and wherein system uses demographic information and customer profile data available to the playback device);
based at least in part on the particular portion of the media asset, that is currently being generated for display, being identified as the particular portion of the plurality of portions that is assigned the peak viewership score in the data structure:(i) delaying generating for display the identified supplemental content (paragraphs 24 and 70 wherein content source communicates with content management system (or another appropriate service) via network or the like to update viewership database).
However Major is silent in regards to disclosing (ii) determining that the particular portion of the media asset has concluded; and generating for display the identified supplemental content after the particular portion of the media asset has concluded.
Gupta discloses (ii) determining that the particular portion of the media asset has concluded; and generating for display the identified supplemental content after the particular portion of the media asset has concluded (paragraphs 161-162 wherein for the “Matrix” movie, supplemental content regarding the Neo Bullet-time scene can be provide to the viewer after the scene finishes in response to user prompt). Gupta provides motivation to combine the references wherein the media guidance application may examine user profiles for preferences, and match those preferences to metadata of the supplemental AR content (paragraph 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the completed profile data of Gupta to the viewership monitoring system of Major in order to provide better supplemental content (paragraph 28).
However Major and Gupta are silent in regards to disclosing based at least in part on the particular portion of the media asset, that is currently being generated for display, being identified as the particular portion of the plurality of portions that is assigned the peak viewership score in the data structure.
Lee discloses based at least in part on the particular portion of the media asset, that is currently being generated for display, being identified as the particular portion of the plurality of portions that is assigned the peak viewership score in the data structure (paragraphs 49-55 wherein user's interest represents how much a user is concerned about or interested in the current viewing object, and may be determined by the user's manipulation).
Lee provides motivation to combine the references wherein if it is determined that the user's interest is less than the reference level, the controller may set a duration of the appreciation object, may create the appreciation object based on the set duration, and may control the video output unit to provide the created appreciation object (paragraph 29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Major and Gupta with the determined user interest in Lee (paragraph 29).
However Major, Gupta and Lee are silent in regards to disclosing (i) refraining from displaying the identified supplemental content during the particular portion of the media asset; (ii) delaying time shifting generating for the display of the identified supplemental content until after the conclusion of the particular portion of the media asset.
Mathews discloses (i) refraining from displaying the identified supplemental content during the particular portion of the media asset;(ii) delaying time shifting generating for the display of the identified supplemental content until after the conclusion of the particular portion of the media asset (paragraphs 115 and 187 wherein “content associated with” media is defined to mean content chosen for display immediately before, during, for the entirety of, or immediately after the display of the media the video content is associated with).
Mathews provides motivation to combine the references wherein the media guidance application may determine that “Forrest Gump” is being displayed on channel 3 from 6:30PM to 10:30PM by consulting the data table (paragraph 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the are before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Major, Gupta and Lee with the supplemental content insertion of Mathews (paragraph 5).
9. Regarding claims 52 and 62, Major discloses the method of claim 51, wherein the peak viewership score assigned to the particular portion of the media asset is a highest viewership score in the data structure (paragraphs 76 wherein requests may also be indicative of the number of viewers who are actually watching the ad, as opposed to the number of viewers who simply record the program (without watching it), or who skip over the ads during playback).
10. Regarding claims 53 and 63, Major discloses the method of claim 51, further comprising: in response to determining that the particular portion of the media asset is not assigned the peak viewership score, generating for display the identified supplemental content relevant to the metadata of the particular portion while the particular portion is being played (paragraphs 67 and 69-70 wherein the requests for supplemental content could be triggered at the time that the identified media content is played back based metadata in media stream, and wherein viewership database can be updated and used to identify peak and non-peak viewership scores).
11. Regarding claims 54 and 64, Major discloses the method of claim 51, wherein the identifying the particular portion of the plurality of portions that is assigned the peak viewership score in the data structure comprises: comparing the viewership score assigned to the particular portion of the plurality of portions of the media asset to respective viewership scores assigned to nearby portions of the plurality of portions of the media asset (paragraphs 29-30 and 41 wherein extracted content data may be compared to data previously stored in a database, as appropriate, to identify portions of content in the program stream.
12. Regarding claims 56 and 66, Major discloses the method of claim 51, wherein the viewership score is based in part on viewership information identified in a plurality of user profiles associated with a plurality of users respectively (paragraphs 23 and 57-58 wherein identification by a content aggregator can be more reliable and more flexible than prior techniques that relied upon programming schedules or metadata in the program stream, and wherein system uses demographic information and customer profile data available to the playback device),
and wherein the viewership information includes at least one of: one or more of social media posts related to the media asset, reviews or summaries of the media asset, a number of viewers of the particular portion, or information in the plurality of user profiles specifying portions of the media asset that was skipped (paragraph 76 wherein skips by a viewer may be reported back to the content source, management system to update viewership database).
13. Regarding claims 57 and 67, Major discloses the method of claim 51, wherein the identifying the supplemental content for display on the user device based on the user profile associated with the user device and the metadata of the particular portion of the media asset comprises: analyzing audiovisual attributes of the particular portion of the media asset (paragraphs 28 and 31 wherein audio portions of the extracted signals are analyzed by an audio analysis system);
identifying a product or a service likely to interest a user, that is featured in the particular portion of the media asset (paragraph 59 wherein if the viewer wanted more information about the advertised product, he or she would be able to obtain it immediately and conveniently, and wherein an advertisement or the like is identified using content from the ad itself, the supplemental content could be readily linked to all of the ads belonging to a product class);
and identifying at least one of: an advertisement, a website, auxiliary information or auxiliary videos that are related to the product or the service likely to interest the user (paragraph 59 wherein if the viewer wanted more information about the advertised product, he or she would be able to obtain it immediately and conveniently, and wherein an advertisement or the like is identified using content from the ad itself, the supplemental content could be readily linked to all of the ads belonging to a product class).
14. Regarding claims 58 and 68, Major discloses the method of claim 57, wherein the identifying the product or the service likely to interest the user, that is featured in the particular portion of the media asset comprises: identifying the product or the service featured in a respective portion of the plurality of portions of the media asset (paragraph 59 wherein if the viewer wanted more information about the advertised
product, he or she would be able to obtain it immediately and conveniently, and wherein
an advertisement or the like is identified using content from the ad itself, the
supplemental content could be readily linked to all of the ads belonging to a product
class);
combining the product placement strength score with the product price score (paragraph 80 wherein effectiveness of ad placement and presentation can be greatly
enhanced over prior targeting techniques that relied heavily upon demographic
viewership data);
and in response to determining that the combined score equals or exceeds the threshold value: determining that the product or the service is likely to interest the user (paragraph 80 wherein ads may still be targeted based upon demographic information,
but based upon actual viewership by an actual viewer).
Gupta discloses analyzing the product or the service to compute a product placement strength score and a product price score (paragraphs 20-22 and 103 wherein server associated with advertisement source may be configured to store raw information that may be used to derive advertisement-suitability scores);
and comparing a combined score representing the product placement strength score and the product price score to a threshold value (paragraph 16 and 65 wherein the media guidance application may match the particular scene of the media content to supplemental AR content based on comparing the metadata of that scene and metadata of the supplemental AR content, wherein content match exceeds a threshold).
15. Regarding claims 59 and 69, Major discloses the method of claim 51, wherein the determining that the particular portion of the media asset has concluded comprises: determining a duration of the particular portion (paragraph 21 wherein ad replacement is contingent on viewing time remaining of content being viewed);
determining, based at least in part on the duration of the particular portion, an amount of time remaining in the particular portion (paragraph 38 wherein the system uses channel and time so that even portions of a program can be individually identified);
and determining whether the amount of time remaining in the particular portion is less than a predefined threshold period of time (paragraph 39 wherein accurate timing for content is gained from predetermined schedule used to determine time remaining).
16. Regarding claims 60 and 70, Major discloses the method of claim 51, wherein the supplemental content is one of a text, a graphic a video or any other suitable depiction of information related to the metadata of the particular portion of the media asset (paragraphs 23 and 57-58 wherein identification by a content aggregator can be more reliable and more flexible than prior techniques that relied upon programming schedules or metadata in the program stream, and wherein system uses demographic information and customer profile data available to the playback device).
17. Claims 55 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major, in view of Gupta, further in view of Rowe (US 2016/0239571), hereinafter referred to as Rowe
18. Regarding claims 55 and 65, Major and Gupta are silent in regards to disclosing the method of claim 51, wherein the viewership scores of the data structure are represented by a viewership curve, and wherein the identifying the particular portion of the plurality of portions that is assigned the peak viewership score in the data structure comprises analyzing the viewership curve to identify a peak.
However, Rowe discloses the method of claim 51, wherein the viewership scores of the data structure are represented by a viewership curve, and wherein the identifying the particular portion of the plurality of portions that is assigned the peak viewership score in the data structure comprises analyzing the viewership curve to identify a peak (paragraphs 31-32 wherein confidence score for the association of the device identifier or user to the item of content may be set based on the difference between the peak and baseline volumes for the search query, and wherein viewership confidence scores may be applied to associations of the device identifier with other content items). Rowe provides motivation to combine the references wherein the correlation may not allow generation of raw viewership numbers, as viewership for highly interesting or engaging content may be over-represented (paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Rowe determining high viewership numbers for content being viewed with Gupta and Major providing supplemental content to content being viewed (paragraph 3).
Conclusion
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES N HICKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7 EST.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. 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.
/CHARLES N HICKS/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
/NASSER M GOODARZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2426