DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-8, 12-16, 18-24 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 Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3 is dependent upon a canceled claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-4, 7-8, 14-16, 18-20 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 3, Sinha teaches the computing system of claim 2, wherein the media content comprises programming media content and non-programming media content (i.e. television feed and a control signal), 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, 0048, 0071, 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 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(s) 5 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(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).
Claim(s) 21, 23-24 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 Das et al. (US 2017/0195730).
Claim 21, Sinha is silent regarding the computing system of claim 1, wherein the defined criteria comprises the user-defined constraint comprising a constraint on a first number of advertisements.
Das teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the defined criteria comprises the user-defined constraint comprising a constraint on a first number of advertisements (i.e. user profile indicated that a users maximum advertisement threshold before walking away is 2 advertisements (p. 0030).
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 threshold number of advertisements as taught by Das to the system of Sinha to provide effective advertising (p. 0030).
Claim 23, Sinha is silent The computing system of claim 1, wherein the defined criteria comprises a limit to a total number of opportunities to present the overlay graphic in the media content.
Das teaches The computing system of claim 1, wherein the defined criteria comprises a limit to a total number of opportunities to present the overlay graphic in the media content (i.e. user profile indicated that a users maximum advertisement threshold before walking away is 2 advertisements (p. 0030).
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 threshold number of advertisements as taught by Das to the system of Sinha to provide effective advertising (p. 0030).
Claim 24, Sinha is silent The computing system of claim 1, wherein the defined criteria comprises a known user attention span.
Das teaches The computing system of claim 1, wherein the defined criteria comprises a known user attention span (i.e. user engaging with advertisements) (p. 0030).
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 threshold number of advertisements as taught by Das to the system of Sinha to provide effective advertising (p. 0030).
Claim(s) 22 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 Matthews et al. (US 2018/0184168).
Claim 22, Sinha is silent The computing system of claim 1, wherein the defined criteria comprises the user- defined constraint comprising a cap on a second number of times a product advertised may be rendered purchasable.
Matthews teaches The computing system of claim 1, wherein the defined criteria comprises the user- defined constraint comprising a cap (i.e. user behavior analysis for determining ideal shopper) on a second number of times a product advertised may be rendered purchasable (i.e. user behavior is analyzed to determine when an ad has become ineffective, for example the vacation package recited on p. 0063-0064) (p. 0063-0064).
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 logic for limiting purchasable ads as taught by Matthews to the system of Sinha to consistently properly target ads (p. 0064).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1, Applicant argues that Claim 5 of Smolic recites "generating an unavailability indicator to be displayed when the first overlay becomes unavailable during the length of the video content." Applicant asserts that the recited "unavailability indicator" fails to correspond to "an overlay graphic in a deactivated state." Paragraph [0044] of Smolic details what constitutes an "unavailability indicator" which is described as separate and distinct from a deactivated overlay graphic that can be activated.
The "unavailability indicator" recited in claim 5 is disclosed as a "button colored for visibility" which is selectable (i.e., activated) on the display. This "unavailability indicator" has no relation to the overlay graphics which may become available during the televised event.
As shown above, claim 5 describes an "unavailability indicator" that is displayed in video content. Smolic does not describe displaying the unavailability indicator in a deactivated state, nor does Smolic describe (or discuss) that the unavailability indicator is an "indicator denoting an unavailable overlay that is displayed" as suggested by the Office Action. Office Action, p. 13. Instead, the cited claim states that an indicator, not a deactivated or even unavailable overlay, is displayed in the video content.
The Office Action's interpretation is not helped by Smolic written description, which is entirely void of any reference to an unavailability indicator. As noted above, in the rebuttal to examiner response, the only indicator that is described in Smolic is an activated indicator that is displayed and allows a user to select and review available overlays after a previously displayed overlay become unavailable. Smolic 1 [0044]. Tellingly, this indicator is provided prior to "provid[ing] a user with a selection of available overlays" to allow a user to select one of the available overlays. Smolic 1 [0044] & FIG. 3. Nothing in claim 5, or anywhere else in Smolic, suggests displaying anything (indicator, overlay, or anything else) in a deactivated or even unavailable state.
In Response:
The Examiner submits that the Applicant, in fact, misinterpreted the disclosure of claim 5 and p. 0044. First, Applicant admits that p. 0044 is “entirely void of any reference to an unavailability indicator”. But then further goes on to say "Paragraph [0044] of Smolic details what constitutes an "unavailability indicator".
The Examiner notes that p. 0044 describes the features relating to presenting available overlays and also displays an indicator for overlay changes. This paragraph alone suggests that the indicator can be displayed to highlight a “change in availability”, which may be “unavailable”. This button alone may be interpreted as an unavailable overlay. However, Smolic goes on to explicitly recite an “unavailability indicator” in claim 5. Claims are an extension of the specification, and although there is no specific disclosure of an “unavailability indicator” in the body of specification, Smolic does indeed teach an explicit “unavailability indicator” that is displayed as denoted by the disclosure of claim 5.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-8, 12-16, 18-24 are rejected.
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.
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 9/16/2026
Prosecution Insights