DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-21 are pending.
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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/17/2024 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 14-16, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha et al. (US 2013/0205212) in view of Hudson et al. (US 2002/0078456), and further in view of Smolic et al. (US 2016/0261927), and further in view of Nyako et al. (US 2007/0074245).
Claim 1, Sinha teaches a computing system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to:
detect at least one of a digital watermark, a digital fingerprint, or a identifier in media content (i.e. assign interactive event IDs to particular fingerprints in a sequence) (figs; 1, 2A-B; p. 002, 0061, 0083):
“render an overlay graphic on the media content for a candidate time interval based on the next action” (i.e. ad servers may be utilized to deliver advertisement overlays to application on end user devices interpreted as a next action) (p. 0090, 0099);
“activate the at least one rendered overlay graphic based on the next action” (i.e. display overlays) (p. 0090, 0099, 0125-0126);
provide for display an interactive view on a client device based on the received trigger response (i.e. trigger signal may correspond to an interactive event overlay which is displayed) (p. 0129-0135).
Sinha is silent regarding a computing system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to:
identify, in a registry, a next action based on the at least one of the digital watermark, the digital fingerprint, or the inserted plurality of trigger identifier in the media content, wherein the next action comprises activating a trigger input comprising an overlaid graphic button associated with a user selectable option;
“wherein the overlay graphic is rendered in a deactivated state”;
“activate the overlay graphic based on the defined criteria, wherein the defined criteria comprises at least one of a user-defined constraint, an inventory constraint, or a specified threshold count of trigger responses associated with the media content”;
receive, via the overlay graphic, a trigger response indicative of a user selectable option.
Hudson teaches a computing system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to:
identify, in a registry (i.e. delivery system), a next action (i.e. insert marker indicating interactivity) based on the at least one of the digital watermark, the digital fingerprint, or the inserted plurality of trigger identifier in the media content (i.e. markers indication interactivity embedded within the primary video), wherein the next action comprises activating a trigger input comprising an overlaid graphic button (i.e. floating bug icon) associated with a user selectable option (i.e. selecting icon) (p. 0033, 0044);
receive, via the overlay graphic, a trigger response indicative of a user selectable option (i.e. user selecting icon to activate web host) (p. 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided overlaid graphics as taught by Hudson to the system of Sinha to provide interactivity (p. 0044).
Smolic teaches the specific feature of:
“wherein the overlay graphic is rendered in a deactivated state” (i.e. unavailability indicator) (p. 0043-0044, claim 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided unavailable options as taught by Smolic to the system of Sinha to increase visibility for the user (p. 0044).
Nyako teaches the specific feature of:
“activate the overlay graphic based on the defined criteria, wherein the defined criteria comprises at least one of a user-defined constraint (i.e. user preferences), an inventory constraint, or a specified threshold count of trigger responses associated with the media content” (i.e. targeted ads with purchasable items according to user preferences) (p. 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided targeted purchasable items as taught by Nyako to the system of Sinha to provide users with a tailored interactive experience (p. 0044).
Claim 2, Sinha teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the media content comprises programming media content and non-programming media content (i.e. television feed and a control signal) (p. 0048, 0071).
Claim 3, Sinha teaches the computing system of claim 2, wherein the non-programming media content comprises promotional media content for at least one of a product offering or a service offering (i.e. personality advertising offers), and wherein the promotional media content comprises at least one of a graphical content, textual content, video content, or animated content (i.e. second screen experience) (p. 0041, 0094).
Claim 4, Sinha teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the digital watermarks, the digital fingerprint, or the trigger identifier in the media content is inserted at a plurality of event opportunity in the media content, wherein the of an event opportunity correspond to a candidate time interval in a playback duration of the media content (i.e. ad servers delivery overlays to end user devices) (p. 0070-0076, 0090, 0099).
Claim 7, Sinha teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the digital watermark, the digital fingerprint, or trigger identifier is inserted into an audio portion or a video portion of the media content at an event opportunity in the media content (i.e. inserting fingerprint into video content) (p, 0050-0052).
Claim 8, Sinha teaches the computing system of claim 7, wherein the event opportunity include one or more of: start credits, end credits, lull points, time-based marked regions, location-based marked regions (i.e. set of coordinates) (p. 0061-0069), context-based marked regions, explicit scene start, explicit scene end, and product placement opportunities within the media content.
Claim 9, Sinha teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the trigger identifiers is at least one of Society of Cable and Telecom Engineers (SCTE) 35 triggers, playlists, manifest tags, SCTE-104 triggers, Nielsen ID3 tags, inaudible beacons, image beacons, and data beacons (p. 0082).
Claim 10, Sinha teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the an input device is activated via one or more of a a Bluetooth network, a Wi-Fi network (p. 0117, 0137), an internet-based network, a wired local network, and a wireless ad hoc network.
Claim 14, Sinha teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
execute a check to decide whether to activate the input device from a set of input devices or the rendered an overlay graphics (i.e. control fucntions may be changed from set top box 310 or end user device 320).
Claim 15, Sinha teaches the computing system of claim 14, wherein the decision is based on the check executed on a defined criteria that is associated with records of previous service requests for the an event opportunity on which the at least one service was delivered in past (i.e. based on user profile) (p. 0042, 0053, 0106), and
wherein the defined criteria comprises at least one of a user-defined constraint, an inventory constraint, and a specified threshold count of trigger responses for a product offering or a service offering promoted by the non-programming media content (i.e. enable a user to respond to difference types of interactive opportunities including trivia questions, games, etc.) (p. 0042, 0053, 0106).
Claim 16 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 1.
Claim 18 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 3.
Claim 19 is analyzed and interpreted as a method of claim 4.
Claim 20 recites “One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors” perform the steps of claim 1. Sinha teaches “One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors” perform the steps of claim 1 (p. 0139).
Claim 21, Sinha is silent regarding the computing system of claim 1, wherein the user-defined constraint comprises at least one of a constraint on a first number of advertisements, a cap on a second number of times a product advertised may be rendered purchasable, or a content filter for a specific viewer.
Nyako teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the user-defined constraint comprises at least one of a constraint on a first number of advertisements, a cap on a second number of times a product advertised may be rendered purchasable, or a content filter for a specific viewer (i.e. user preferences for targeted ads is interpreted as a content filter for the specific user) (p. 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided targeted purchasable items as taught by Nyako to the system of Sinha to provide users with a tailored interactive experience (p. 0044).
Claim(s) 5, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha et al. (US 2013/0205212) in view of Hudson et al. (US 2002/0078456), and further in view of Smolic et al. (US 2016/0261927), and further in view of Nyako et al. (US 2007/0074245), and further in view of Roberts et al. (US 2016/0127788).
Claim 5, Sinha is silent regarding the computing system of claim 4, wherein the overlay graphic and the one or more input devices are activated based on previous service requests for the event opportunity on which service was rendered as a user-selectable option based on usage statistics and engagement with overlay graphic on the activation of the overlay graphic.
Roberts teaches the computing system of claim 4, wherein the overlay graphic and the one or more input devices are activated based on previous service requests for the event opportunity on which service was rendered as a user-selectable option based on usage statistics (i.e. vicinity statistics, recommended content based on profile) and engagement with the overlay graphic on the activation of the overlay graphic (i.e. presenting recommended content with selection graphical objects currently presented media) (p. 0046, 0057-0058, 0060, 0064).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided usage statistics as taught by Roberts to the system of Sinha to accurately provide recommended content (p. 0060).
Claim 11, Sinha is not entirely clear in teaching the computing system of claim 1, wherein a virtual voice assistant is enabled on the input devices.
Roberts teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein a virtual voice assistant is enabled on the input devices (i.e. mobile deivce with microphone) (p. 0020, 0031, 0041, 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided a microphone as taught by Roberts to the system of Sinha to record audio (p. 0020).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha et al. (US 2013/0205212) in view of Hudson et al. (US 2002/0078456), and further in view of Smolic et al. (US 2016/0261927), and further in view of Nyako et al. (US 2007/0074245), and further in view of Kassan (US 2006/0122916).
Claim 6, Sinha is silent regarding the computing system of claim 1, wherein the interactive view displays a message and a transfer of a first view associated with a selection of the user-selectable option to a second view associated with the delivery of the service along with a playback of the media content in the playback duration.
Kassan teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the interactive view displays a message and a transfer of a first view associated with a selection of the user-selectable option (i.e. adding item to cart) to a second view (i.e. second cue confirming the items was added) associated with the delivery of the service along with a playback of the media content in the playback duration (p. 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided visualizing purchases as taught by Kassan to the system of Sinha for a user friendly purchasing experience (p. 0037).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha et al. (US 2013/0205212) in view of Hudson et al. (US 2002/0078456), and further in view of Smolic et al. (US 2016/0261927), and further in view of Nyako et al. (US 2007/0074245), and further in view of Roberts et al. (US 2016/0127788), and further in view of Leblang et al. (US 2018/0007060).
Claim 12, Sinha is silent regarding the computing system of claim 11, wherein the input device enabled with the virtual voice assistant is configured to actively wait and listen for a trigger identifier in an audio portion of the media content.
Leblang teaches the computing system of claim 11, wherein the input device enabled with the virtual voice assistant is configured to actively wait and listen for a trigger identifier in an audio portion of the media content (i.e. triggered by awake mode) (p. 0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided audio trigger as taught by Leblang to the system of Sinha to provide voice activation (p. 0027).
Claim 13, Sinha is silent regarding the computing system of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
instruct the virtual voice assistant to detect beacon within the playback duration of the media content; and
facilitate a conversation with a user associated to receive a trigger response from the user, wherein the trigger response is received through the user’s speech input.
Leblang teaches the computing system of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
instruct the virtual voice assistant to detect beacon within the playback duration of the media content (i.e. voice capturing end point) (p. 0013, 0022, 0067); and
facilitate a conversation with a user associated to receive a trigger response from the user, wherein the trigger response is received through the user’s speech input (i.e. user issuing one or more commands) (p. 0013, 0022, 0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided audio trigger as taught by Leblang to the system of Sinha to provide voice activation (p. 0027).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that First, with respect to the deactivated state, the Final Office Action acknowledges that Sinha in view of Hudson fails to teach or suggest rendering an overlay graphic in a deactivated state. Smolic is cited to correct this deficiency. Specifically, paragraphs [0043]-[0044]. The cited disclosure relates to a selection indicator of available overlays, where a particular overlay may be unavailable during a portion of a broadcast. Smolic recites: during a broadcast of a sporting event, a score overlay may be unavailable during pregame coverage, may become available during the course of the event and may cease to be available during postgame coverage Importantly, Smolic thus makes available a particular overlay based on the underlying broadcast event. Smolic fails to teach or suggest rendering an overlay graphic in a deactivated state as Smolic specifically discloses that a "user is provided with a corresponding selection of available overlays" as stated in paragraph [0044]. Emphasis added. There is no suggestion that "unavailable" overlays are presented such that under no interpretation of Smolic is an overlay presented in a deactivated state as recited by the claims.
In Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Smolic discloses available and unavailable overlays that are displayed. Smoilc specifically discusses an indicator denoting an unavailable overlay that is displayed. This is interpreted as an overlay in a deactivated state (claim 5).
Applicant further argues that There is no reasonable motivation to modify Sinha, Hudson, or Smolic in the manner alleged in the Final Office Action. The Final Office Action cites Smolic as teaching the presentation of an overlay in a deactivated state, and that Smolic activates the overlays based on availability of the overlay relative to the underlying broadcast content. Nyako is cited to teach "targeted ads with purchasable items according to user preferences" in paragraph [0044]. Nyako recites:
For example, a user watching a virtual channel tailored to mountain climbing can be targeted with interactive on-demand advertisements that allow the user to purchase climbing gear immediately with one click of a button. The cited teaching of Nyako fails to activate an overlay graphic that is initially rendered in a deactivated state, much less based on the defined criteria recited in Claim 1. Conversely, Nyako fails to teach or suggest any activation from a deactivated state, and instead teaches presenting an interactive advertisement. The initial presentation is necessarily interactive, such that there is nota deactivated state. Thus, Nyako does not teach to "activate the overlay graphic based on a next action and defined criteria."
The overlay graphic of Nyako is entirely distinct from that of Sinha, Hudson, and Smolic and the cited teachings of Nyako are independent of any features of Sinha, Hudson, or Smolic. Sinha and Hudson fail to teach or suggest an overlay graphic that is presented in a deactivated state and is later activated based on the claimed triggers. Smolic teaches "the availability and selection of optional overlays may change during the duration of a program," such that the availability is based on the underlying program. Conversely, Nyako is directed to "targeted on-demand advertisements." These two different overlay graphics are unrelated, and their mechanisms for being presented are entirely distinct. Further, it is unclear how Smolic may be modified by Nyako in such a way as to arrive at the aforementioned claimed feature, and the cited motivation does not provide an indication of how the proposed modification is made.
In response:
The Examiner submits that the Applicant has misconstrued the Examiner's position. Sinha is relied upon for teaching rendering and activating overlays. Hudson is relied upon for teaching specifics regarding a "next action" for triggering an overlay, for the added advantage of providing interactivity to the user. Nyoko is relied upon for teaching specifically a "user defined constraint", user preferences with respect to activating an overlay for the added advantage of a tailored user experience. What is missing from Sinha, Hudson, and Nyako is merely "an overlay graphic rendered in a deactivated state". As discussed above, Smolic teaches available and unavailable overlays that are displayed. Smoilc specifically discusses an indicator denoting an unavailable overlay that is displayed. This is interpreted as an overlay in a deactivated state (claim 5).
Applicant further argues that The Final Office Action states on page 5: "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided targeted purchasable items as taught by Nyako to the system of Sinha to provide users with a tailored interactive experience (p. 0044)." This alleged motivation does not modify Sinha with the teaching of Nyako, but merely suggests adding the targeted advertisements to the teaching of Sinha. Applicant submits that the stated motivation lacks any reasonable basis or rationale, based upon the disclosure of the cited references at the time the invention by the Applicant was made (see MPEP § 2141.01(III)), for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the references. The phrase "to have provided targeted purchasable items as taught by Nyako to the system of Sinha to provide users with a tailored interactive experience" has no relation to any recognized problem, deficiency, or purpose of Sinha, Hudson, or Smolic. Nothing in Sinha, Hudson, Smolic, or Nyako provides a reasonable basis or rationale for why or how one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Sinha with the teaching of Nyako. There was no known problem that would lead to the result of combining Sinha with Nyako in such a way as to arrive at the claimed features. This statement amounts merely to a general conclusory statement without a clear articulation of the reasons why the claimed invention would have been obvious.
See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (CA Fed. 2006) ("[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulate reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness" (emphasis added)). Notwithstanding the above, Applicant asserts that even if one were to combine Sinha, Hudons, and Smolic with Nyako, albeit improperly, the combination would not result in the claimed invention. Smolic is cited as teaching presenting a graphic overlay in a deactivated state, where the overlay is activated based on the underlying program. Nyako is cited as teaching presenting a graphic overlay of a targeted advertisement. These graphic overlays are mutually exclusive, and Nyako fails to modify the teaching of Smolic to arrive at any form of activation of the deactivated overlay of Smolic. Further, it would be contrary to the intent of Nyako to present the targeted advertisement graphic overlay in a deactivated state as targeted advertisements are presented with the sole intent of engagement from a user, and precluding that engagement by presenting an advertisement in a deactivated state would be contrary to the teaching of Nyako.
In response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above Sinha, Hudson, and Nyako, and Smolic provide an added advantages. With respect to the combination, Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and that of the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself; "[an application] claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result", KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 50-51, 148 USPQ 479, 483 (1966)). As discussed above, Sinha is relied upon for teaching rendering and activating overlays. Hudson is relied upon for teaching specifics regarding a "next action" for triggering an overlay, for the added advantage of providing interactivity to the user. Nyoko is relied upon for teaching specifically a "user defined constraint", user preferences with respect to activating an overlay for the added advantage of a tailored user experience. Smolic teaches an overlay in a deactivated state for the added advantage of providing optional overlays to the system.
Conclusion
Claims 1-16, 18-21 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180332361 A1 Santoro; Vito Michael et al.
US 20160219347 A1 KITAHARA; Jun et al.
US 8595771 B1 Sharma; Priyanka
US 20090115893 A1 Larsen; Tonni Sandager et al.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSHFIKH I ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1710. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00PM-9:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MUSHFIKH I. ALAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2426
/MUSHFIKH I ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 4/10/2026
Prosecution Insights