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 12-20 are canceled. Claims 21-29 has been added. Claims 1-11 and 21-29 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-11 of Group I in the reply filed on 6/22/2026 is acknowledged.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a server side editorial graphical user interface (GUI) configured to receive…, a data backplane configured to obtain… and an overlay metadata generator configured to:…, an editorial user interface (UI) generator configured to:…,” in claims 1, 2, and 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 5-11, 21-23, 25-26, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20150026728 A1 to Carter in view of US Pub. No. 20220046313 A1 to Harshawat.
As to claims 1 and 21, Carter discloses a system, comprising:
a server-side editorial graphical user interface (GUI), configured to receive and store overlay detail selections of a server-side-defined graphical overlay to be presented with requested content by a client-side content player(Carter Fig. 1-6, 9-10, ¶0042-0046, 0053-0054, 0056-0060, traffic control 205 application run on a server including editorial 285 that allows the user/employee to provide input and store triggers for overlaying element/content over the video including time and the element/content to overlay that is to be presented/displayed with content requested/displayed by the client device);
a data backplane, configured to obtain service data from server-side services to incorporate into the server-side defined graphical overlay based at least in part on the overlay detail selections (Carter Fig. 1-6, 9-10, ¶0054, 0069-0073, ingest 505 receiving multiple feeds 210 from server to add into the server created overlay element/content over the video based on the triggers for overlaying element/content over the video); and
Carter does not expressly disclose an overlay metadata generator configured to: convert raw overlay data comprising the overlay detail selections and the service data into overlay trigger code comprising metadata interpretable by the client-side content player to render the server-side defined graphical overlay.
Harshawat discloses an overlay metadata generator configured to: convert raw overlay data comprising the overlay detail selections and the service data into overlay trigger code comprising metadata interpretable by the client-side content player to render the server-side defined graphical overlay (Harshawat Fig. 1, 3-6, ¶0026, 0028-0029, 0037, 0042, 0050-0051, 0053-0054, 0076-0078, 0093-0099, 0104-0105, 0118-0120, overlay customization logic 128 to generate overlay templates transforming overlay data including overlay instructions with variables and various overlay data into overlay templates having plurality of data that is read by the client device to display the server created overlay).
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 Carter by to correlate the user demographics to a timeline of content consumed by the user through the video display unit to generate enhanced content usage metrics, and to communicate the enhanced content usage metrics through the communication interface for delivery to the central content usage analysis computer as disclosed by Harshawat. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to yield predictable results of efficiently generating custom overlay templates to clients of the system enhancing the user’s experience.
As to claims 2 and 23, Carter and Harshawat discloses an editorial user interface (UI) generator configured to: generate a back end service call to associate with the server-side-defined graphical overlay, based upon at least a portion of the overlay detail selections (Carter Fig. 1-6, 9-10, ¶0056-0058, editorial 305 contains functions that enable the employee to insert triggers related to show priority, screen layout, and social media); and
provide the back end service call to the overlay metadata generator as a portion of the raw overlay data to incorporate into the overlay trigger code (Harshawat Fig. 1, 3-6, ¶0026, 0028-0029, 0037, 0042, 0050-0051, 0053-0054, 0076-0078, 0093-0099, 0104-0105, 0118-0120, providing the overlay customization logic with machine learning logic information e.g. user profile, into the custom overlay template for the specific user).
As to claims 5 and 25, Harshawat discloses wherein the overlay trigger code comprises a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) file, an Extensible Markup Language (XML) file, or both (Harshawat Fig. 1, 3-6, ¶0116, JSON).
As to claims 6 and 28, Carter discloses wherein the overlay trigger code comprises a timing with respect to the requested content indicating when with respect to the requested content the server-side-defined graphical overlay should be presented with the requested content (Carter Fig. 1-6, 9-10, ¶0043, timecode, start time and Harshawat Fig. 1, 3-6, ¶0044, 0096-0098, 0140, 0170-0177, timing information/parameters).
As to claims 7, Harshawat discloses wherein the timing comprises an indication of a frame of the requested content where the server-side-defined graphical overlay should be presented (Harshawat Fig. 1, 3-6, ¶0044, 0096-0098, 0140, 0170-0177, frame for which values define a position and dimensions of the layout)
As to claims 8, Carter discloses wherein the timing comprises an indication of a duration of time that the server-side-defined graphical overlay should be displayed (Carter Fig. 1-6, 9-10, ¶0043, timecode, start time and end time and Harshawat Fig. 1, 3-6, ¶0044, 0096-0098, 0140, 0170-0177, timing information/parameters and duration).
As to claims 9 and 29, Harshawat discloses wherein the overlay metadata generator is configured to provide a plurality of overlay definitions in the overlay trigger code (Harshawat Fig. 1, 3-6, ¶0026, 0028-0029, 0037, 0042, 0050-0051, 0053, 0076-0078, 0093-0099, 0104-0105, 0118-0120, overlay engine to generate overlay templates), enabling the client-side content player to pre-load a plurality of overlays associated with the plurality of overlay definitions (Harshawat Fig. 1, 3-6, ¶0035, 0149-0150, 0191, storing/caching template).
As to claims 10 and 22, Harshawat discloses wherein the overlay detail selections comprise a targeting indication to target the server-side-defined graphical overlay to a first subset of client-side content viewers without targeting a second subset of client-side content viewers (Harshawat Fig. 1, 3-6, ¶0032, 0053, 0056, 0058-0062, 0065-0067, 0091, 0134, generating/customizing overlay based on user profile); and
wherein the overlay metadata generator is configured to cause the server-side-defined graphical overlay defined in the overlay trigger code to be rendered by the first subset of client-side content viewers but not the second subset of client-side content viewers (Harshawat Fig. 1, 3-6, ¶0032, 0053, 0056, 0058-0062, 0065-0067, 0091, 0134, overlay engine generating/customizing overlay based on user profile thereby displaying the overlay according to the user profile).
As to claims 11, Harshawat discloses wherein the targeting indication is based upon a particular subject matter of content playing on the first subset of client-side content viewers, a demographic of viewers of the first subset of client-side content viewers, or both (Harshawat Fig. 1, 3-6, ¶0032, 0053, 0056, 0058-0062, 0065-0067, 0091, 0134, location of the user).
As to claim 26, see claims 1 and 2 for similar rejection.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20150026728 A1 to Carter in view of US Pub. No. 20220046313 A1 to Harshawat and in further view of US Pub. No. 20180285818 A1 to Soltani.
As to claim 4, Carter and Harshawat do not expressly disclose wherein the back end service call comprises a GET request, a POST request or both to the back end service.
Soltani discloses wherein the back end service call comprises a GET request, a POST request or both to the back end service (Soltani ¶0112, 0120, HTTP GET request).
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 Carter and Harshawat by wherein the back end service call comprises a GET request, a POST request or both to the back end service as disclosed by Soltani. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to yield predictable results of requesting data from a server at a specific address to retrieve information thereby safe requesting and/or improving performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 24, and 27 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-US Pub. No. 20240129599 A1 to Basser (Generating overlays for a broadcast)
-US Pub. No. 20250332509 A1 to Ganschow (Generation of interactive content overlays)
-US Pub. No. 20140359656 A1 to Banica (Inserting the overlay into the selected location and renders the video with the inserted overlay)
Claims 1, 2, 5-11, 21-23, 25-26, 28 and 29 have been rejected.
Claims 3, 24, and 27 are objected.
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