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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-28 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Examiner has brought in Hirsch (2021/0235163) to disclose the newly amended feature.
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, 7-15, 22-23, and 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over N’guessan (2024/0147009) in view of Tseng (8756276), Foerster (9820004), and Hirsch (2021/0235163).
As for claim 1, N’guessan discloses computer-implemented method for evaluating videos comprising:
inserting a container unit into a webpage ([0039], [0044]);
populating the container unit with one or more videos from a video library (Video container is populated with videos; [0037], [0055], [0059]);
rendering a video from within the one or more videos to a user, wherein user interactions are associated with the video ([0058], [0059], [0061]);
evaluating the user interactions, using one or more processors, wherein the evaluating occurs as the video is rendered to the user (While watching the video, the user provides a user engagement signal such as a positive and/or negative indication. The user engagement signals are evaluated in order to modify the videos in the container; [0024], [0034], [0043], [0058]-[0061]);
calculating an engagement metric, recording the engagement metric, wherein the engagement metric is associated with the video (While user engages with a video, user provides a “like”, “dislike”, “remove recommendation” or “favorite” reaction. ;[0024], [0034], [0043], [0058]-[0061]).
However, N’guessan fails to disclose:
Wherein the engagement metric determines a score indicating a user level of interest in the short-form video;
wherein a first rate of change in the user interactions during a first time period is compared to a second rate of change in the user interactions over a second time period;
wherein the calculating is further based on a user response time to onscreen questions;
In an analogous art, Tseng discloses:
wherein a first rate of change in the user interactions during a first time period is compared to a second rate of change in the user interactions over a second time period (col. 8, lines 45-56, col. 14, lines 44-63, col. 15, lines 18-30);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nguessan’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Tseng, for the advantage of providing notifications relevant to a user’s current interests.
However, N’guessan and Tseng fails to disclose:
Wherein the engagement metric determines a score indicating a user level of interest in the short-form video;
wherein the calculating is further based on a user response time to onscreen questions;
In an analogous art, Foerster discloses:
Wherein the engagement metric determines a score indicating a user level of interest in the short-form video (col. 9, lines 28-54, col. 11, lines 44-58);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify N’guessan and Tseng’s include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Foerster, for the advantage of optimizing the timing for displaying an overlay.
However, N’guessan, Tseng, and Foerster fail to disclose:
wherein the calculating is further based on a user response time to onscreen questions;
In an analogous art, Hirsch discloses:
wherein the calculating is further based on a user response time to onscreen questions (Level of engagement is based on time elapsed for when a correct answer is received to a question [0029], [0034], [0041], [0058]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify N’guessan, Tseng, Foerster’s include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Hirsch, for the advantage of effectively determining the level of user engagement.
As for claim 2, N’guessan discloses wherein the populating the container unit is based on the engagement metric that was recorded with the one or more videos ([0023]-[0024], [0059]-[0061], [0063]). Foerster teaches wherein the video a short-form video (segment).
As for claim 3, N’guessan discloses further comprising changing an order of the one or more videos in the container unit based on the engagement metric recorded with the one or more videos (updates queue based on user engagement signal; [0023]-[0024], [0059]-[0061], [0063]). Foerster teaches wherein the video a short-form video (segment). Tseng teaches wherein the changing comprises sorting the videos according to the recorded engagement metric scores (col. 7, lines 52-col. 8, line 13, col. 9, lines 17-28, col. 15, line 63 - col. 16, line 6, col. 18, lines 52-64).
As for claim 4, the modified N’guessan discloses further comprising comparing the engagement metric to a threshold value (see Tseng: col. 18, lines 10-39).
As for claim 7, N’guessan discloses further comprising boosting the engagement metric of the video (When the user selects “like”, it boosts the engagement metric; [0024], [0034], [0043], [0058]). Foerster teaches wherein the video a short-form video (segment).
As for claim 8, N’guessan discloses wherein the boosting is based on the engagement metric of a neighboring video within the container unit (When the user “likes” a video, the videos in the video container are modified; [0022]). Foerster teaches wherein the video a short-form video (segment).
As for claim 9, N’guessan discloses evaluating metadata associated with the video ([0050], [0051], [0054]). Foerster teaches wherein the video a short-form video (segment).
As for claim 10, the modified N’guessan discloses calculating a second engagement metric, wherein a first rate of change of the metadata during a third time period is compared to a second rate of change in the metadata over a fourth time period (see Tseng: col. 8, lines 45-56, col. 15, lines 31-52, col. 16, lines 44-59).
As for claim 11, the modified N’guessan discloses wherein the metadata includes view history (see Tseng: genre, categories; col. 8, lines 45-56, col. 15, lines 31-52, col. 16, lines 44-59).
As for claim 12, N’guessan discloses populating the container unit (Video container is populated with videos; [0037], [0055], [0059]). Tseng teaches populating based on the second engagement metric (col. 8, lines 45-56, col. 15, lines 31-52, col. 16, lines 44-59).
As for claim 13, the modified N’guessan discloses comprising determining a combined metric based on combining the metadata and the user interactions (see N’guessan: [0050], [0051], [0054]; Tseng: col. 15, lines 31-52).
As for claim 14, the modified N’guessan discloses wherein the combined metric is based on a first rate of change of the combined metric over a fifth time period compared to a second rate of change of the combined metric over a sixth time period (Tseng: col. 15, lines 31-52).
As for claim 15, the modified N’guessan wherein the populating the container unit is based on the combined metric (see N’guessan: Populating the container unit is based on the metadata of the content that the user watches and the user interaction signals such as liking or disliking a video; [0050], [0051], [0054]).
As for claim 22, the modified N’guessan discloses further comprising presenting a promotion, to the user, in the video (Tseng: incentive, coupon, promotion; col. 4, lines 9-14, col. 9, lines 37-43, col. 11, lines 37-67). Foerster teaches wherein the video a short-form video (segment).
As for claim 23, the modified N’guessan wherein the presenting is based on a bid from an advertiser and/or the engagement metric of the video (Tseng: fig. 10, col. 27, line 47-col. 28, line 23). Foerster teaches wherein the video a short-form video (segment).
Claims 25 and 26 contain the limitations of claims and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
As for claim 27, Hirsch discloses wherein a longer response time to questions presented during the video is associated with a loss of interest in the video ([0029]). Foerster discloses short-form videos (col. 9, lines 28-54, col. 11, lines 44-58).
As for claim 28, Hirsch discloses wherein a shorter response time to questions presented during the video is associated with increased interest in the video ([0029]). Foerster discloses short-form videos (col. 9, lines 28-54, col. 11, lines 44-58).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over N’guessan, Tseng, Foerster, and Hirsch as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view Doherty (12050863).
As for claim 5, N’guessan discloses further comprising removing a populated video from within the one or more videos that were populated in the container unit (updates queue based on user engagement signal; [0023]-[0024], [0059]-[0061], [0063]). Foerster teaches wherein the video a short-form video (segment).
However, N’guessan, Tseng, Foerster, and Hirsch fail to disclose removing content when the engagement metric is less than the threshold value.
In an analogous art, Doherty discloses removing content when the engagement metric is less than the threshold value (col. 26, lines 8-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify N’guessan, Tseng, Foerster, and Hirsch’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Doherty, for the advantage of preventing generating and serving instances of low performing responsive media once a low performing responsive media is identified.
As for claim 6, N’guessan discloses further comprising replacing the populated video that was removed with a second video from the video library, wherein the replacing is based on the engagement metric recorded with the second short-form video (updates queue based on user engagement signal and replaces with a video the user has a likelihood of liking; [0023]-[0024], [0059]-[0061], [0063]). Foerster teaches wherein the video a short-form video (segment).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over N’guessan, Tseng, Foerster, and Hirsch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shim (2011/0197213).
As for claim 16, N’guessan, Tseng, Foerster, and Hirsch disclose determining user interest, based on a view history by the user (see Tseng: genre, categories; col. 8, lines 45-56, col. 15, lines 31-52, col. 16, lines 44-59), However, N’guessan, Tseng, and Foerster fail to disclose wherein the view history includes a total watch time.
In an analogous art, Shim discloses wherein the view history includes a total watch time ([0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify N’guessan, Tseng, Foerster, and Hirsch’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Shim, for the advantage of detecting the viewing preference of each user.
As for claim 17, the modified N’guessan discloses wherein the user interest is based on a first rate of change of the view history over a seventh time period compared to a second rate of change in the view history over an eighth time period (see Tseng: col. 8, lines 45-56, col. 15, lines 31-52, col. 16, lines 44-59).
As for claim 18, N’guessan discloses wherein the populating the container unit is based on user interest (updates queue based on user engagement signal; [0023]-[0024], [0059]-[0061], [0063]).
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over N’guessan, Tseng, Foerster, and Hirsch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thapaliya (2021/0014559)
As for claim 19, N’guessan, Tseng, Foerster, and Hirsch fail to disclose: enabling an ecommerce purchase of a product for sale to the user within the short-form video that was rendered, wherein the product for sale is relevant to the short-form video.
In an analogous art, Thapaliya discloses enabling an ecommerce purchase of a product for sale to the user within the short-form video that was rendered, wherein the product for sale is relevant to the short-form video (Fig. 1-3; [0024], [0055], [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify N’guessan, Tseng, Foerster, and Hirsch’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Thapaliya, for the advantage of optimizing revenue.
As for claim 20, Thapaliya discloses wherein the ecommerce purchase is accomplished within the short-form video (Fig. 1-3; [0024], [0055]).
As for claim 21, Thapaliya discloses wherein the enabling an ecommerce purchase includes a virtual purchase cart ([0058], [0004]).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over N’guessan, Tseng, Foerster, and Hirsch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Madden (WO 2019/212843).
As for claim 24, N’guessan discloses populating the container unit as discussed above in clam 1, but fails to discloses populating based on a bid from an advertiser.
In an analogous art, Madden discloses populating based on a bid from an advertiser ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify N’guessan, Tseng, Foerster, and Hirsch’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Madden, for the advantage of optimizing the revenue earned from advertisers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8567. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-3:00 PM.
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, NATHAN FLYNN can be reached at (571)272-1915. 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.
SUMAIYA A. CHOWDHURY
Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421