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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-32 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/30/2026 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20050244138 A1 to O’Conner in view of US Pub. No. 20090271834 A1 to Asmussen.
As to claim 1, 9, 17 and 25, O’Conner discloses a method comprising:
after an output of content of the interruption event, causing output of the one or more missed portions of the content stream (O’Conner ¶0040, 0045-0047, 0066-0067, 0070, 0086-0087, after displaying/outputting the still image of the image present at the instance when the suspend, remote control user input was encountered, playing back the portion that were missed); and
after the output of the one or more missed portions of the content stream, causing output of the content stream to resume (O’Conner ¶0040, 0045-0047, 0066-0067, 0070, 0086-0087, after displaying missed portion of the video during the interruption, continuing/returning to the real-time display of the video)
O’Conner does not expressly disclose determining, by a device, one or more missed portions of a content stream corresponding an occurrence of an interruption event.
Asmussen discloses determining, by a device, one or more missed portions of a content stream corresponding an occurrence of an interruption event (Asmussen ¶0033, 0330-0331, 0334-0337, 0340, determining by the STB missed portions of the video program corresponding to the detection of an occurrence of a communications/triggering event); and
after an output of content of the interruption event, causing output of the one or more missed portions of the content stream (Asmussen ¶0033, 0330-0331, 0334-0337, 0340, displaying the missed portions of the video program from the buffer after displaying the indication of the communications/triggering event).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Conner by determining, by a device, one or more missed portions of a content stream corresponding an occurrence of an interruption event and after an output of content of the interruption event, causing output of the one or more missed portions of the content stream as disclosed by Asmussen. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to yield predictable results of playing/displaying portions of the video program that were missed based on the occurrence of a communications/triggering events thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
As to claim 2, 10, 18 and 26, O’Conner discloses wherein the interruption event comprises at least one of: a video interruption, a replay event, a commentary event, an Amber Alert, an Emergency Alert System (EAS) announcement, a content trigger, a noteworthy event/action occurring in video content, a breaking news event, a political address, a network interruption, a service interruption, a software failure, or a hardware failure (O’Conner ¶0040, 0045-0047, 0066-0067, 0070, 0086-0087, replay, pause and Asmussen ¶0033, 0330-0331, 0334-0337, 0340, pausing video program).
As to claim 7, 15, 23 and 31, O’Conner discloses determining at least one of: a pause in an audio stream or a change in a view of a video stream (O’Conner ¶0040, 0045-0047, 0066-0067, 0070, 0086-0087, pause and Asmussen ¶0238, 0276, switching channel/video).
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 of this title, 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 3-6, 11-14, 19-22, 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20050244138 A1 to O’Conner in view of US Pub. No. 20090271834 A1 to Asmussen and in further view of US Pub. No. 20160066042 A1 to Dimov.
As to claim 3, 11, 19 and 27, O’Conner and Asmussen do not expressly disclose wherein the one or more missed portions of the content stream corresponding to the interruption event comprise one or more portions of the content stream that otherwise would have been output during the interruption event that satisfy an interest level threshold.
Dimov discloses wherein the one or more missed portions of the content stream corresponding to the interruption event comprise one or more portions of the content stream that otherwise would have been output during the interruption event that satisfy an interest level threshold (Dimov Fig. 1-3, ¶0019-0021, 0028, 0040, 0043, 0053, 0056-0057, determining using excitement data associated with the display of the video, a portion of the video that meets/exceeds an excitement threshold level).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Conner and Asmussen by wherein the one or more missed portions of the content stream corresponding to the interruption event comprise one or more portions of the content stream that otherwise would have been output during the interruption event that satisfy an interest level threshold as disclosed by Dimov. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to yield predictable results of only providing/displaying exciting/interesting portions of the video that meets/exceeds an excitement threshold level thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
As to claim 4, 12, 20 and 28, O’Conner and Asmussen does not expressly disclose determining, based on data associated with a plurality of portions of the content stream, an interest level associated with each portion of the plurality of portions; and determining, based on the interest level associated with each portion of the plurality of portions, one or more portions of the plurality of portions that satisfy an interest level threshold.
Dimov discloses determining, based on data associated with a plurality of portions of the content stream, an interest level associated with each portion of the plurality of portions (Dimov Fig. 1-3, ¶0019-0021, 0028, 0040, 0043, 0053, 0056-0057, determining using excitement data associated with a plurality of portions of the video, the level of excitement for each portion of the video); and
determining, based on the interest level associated with each portion of the plurality of portions, one or more portions of the plurality of portions that satisfy an interest level threshold (Dimov Fig. 1-3, ¶0019-0021, 0028, 0040, 0043, 0053, 0056-0057, determining based on the level of excitement of each portion of the video, portions that exceed a suitable threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Conner and Asmussen by determining, based on data associated with a plurality of portions of the content stream, an interest level associated with each portion of the plurality of portions; and determining, based on the interest level associated with each portion of the plurality of portions, one or more portions of the plurality of portions that satisfy an interest level threshold as disclosed by Dimov. The suggestion/motivation would have been order to yield predictable results of only providing/displaying exciting/interesting portions of the video that meets/exceeds an excitement threshold level thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
As to claim 5, 13, 21 and 29, Dimov discloses wherein the data associated with each portion of the plurality of portions comprises at least one of: game actions, game statistics, or game information (Dimov Fig. 1-3, ¶0019-0021, 0028, 0040, 0043, 0053, 0056-0057, goal or change in game score).
As to claim 6, 14, 22 and 30, Dimov discloses wherein the interest level threshold is associated with at least one of: game actions, game statistics, or game information (Dimov Fig. 1-3, ¶0019-0021, 0028, 0040, 0043, 0053, 0056-0057, goal or change in game score).
Claims 8, 16, 24 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20050244138 A1 to O’Conner in view of US Pub. No. 20090271834 A1 to Asmussen and in further view of US Pub. No. 20140149533 A1 to Bergman.
As to claim 8, 16, 24 and 32, O’Conner and Asmussen do not expressly disclose wherein causing the output of the one or more missed portions of the content stream comprises removing from storage any portions of the content stream that do not satisfy an interest level threshold.
Bergman discloses wherein causing the output of the one or more missed portions of the content stream comprises removing from storage any portions of the content stream that do not satisfy an interest level threshold (Bergman ¶0021-0024, see claim 12, removing/deleting content from storage not meeting the popularity threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Conner and Asmussen by wherein causing the output of the one or more missed portions of the content stream comprises removing from storage any portions of the content stream that do not satisfy an interest level threshold as disclosed by Bergman. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to yield predictable results of conserveing storage by removing/delete content that is not meeting the threshold.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-32 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Claims 1-32 have been rejected.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYU CHAE whose telephone number is (571)270-5696. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00am -4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NASSER MOAZZAMI 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYU CHAE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights