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 all pending claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that cited references failed to disclose system for contextual modification of content based on multimodal extraction of metadata from said content, wherein said metadata is extracted by processing one or more scenes in said content to extract metadata corresponding to multiple extraction modes, and an embedding model for each extraction mode wherein an aggregated embedding model responsive to said extracted metadata for each mode formulates an aggregated embedding comprising: a process controller including an embedding extractor responsive to a control input wherein said control input specifies one or more features defining a content modification opportunity and wherein said embedding extractor includes an embedding model coordinated with said embedding model for one or more of said embedding modes to generate an opportunity embedding in the form of a vector; a vector comparison processor for determining the distance between said
opportunity embedding and said aggregated embedding to determine a content
modification opportunity; wherein said process controller is responsive to said vector comparison processor to generate edit control instructions indicating a modification of said content upon detection of said content modification opportunity; and a content editor responsive to said edit control instructions to modify said content and having a modified content output.
However, Nandi et al disclose a system being able to provide metadata related to media content as location of the ad in webpage and metadata related to the webpage and the system can retrieve or extract metadata associated with ads from database and the system can use embedding model for managing metadata as disclosed in para. 0038; 0074 ;0038 ;0083;0064; abstract; 0025.
And the system contains processors for processing data and users have the capability to input data and users have the capability of interacting with metadata and the system can provide temporal data related to advertising opportunity and the system can predict advertising opportunity data based on embedding data and vectors associated with embeddings can be used to represent locations of metadata as disclosed 0036;0074 ; 0003; 0021 ; 0054; 0049; 0044.
And the system can determine advertising opportunity based on embedding data and the system can provide ads based on metadata and based on geographic location of a specific audience as disclosed in para. 0005;0007;0058; abstract.
And Hitching et al disclose a system that can edit video content in order to generate video clips for a target audience and the system is able to use specific algorithm to edit video content in selecting candidate video clips as disclosed in para. 0033-0034;0088;0020-0022;0037;0077;0043; 0006-0007.
And the system can dynamically adjust the streaming manifest in order to upload or insert advertisements in the main video stream according to specified criteria matching specific category or group of users or audience members and finally, the system is able to process and edit media content in selecting candidate video clips and the system can establish relationship between feature vector and the video metadata using specific technique as disclosed in para.0086;0067-0068;0021-0022;0034;0038.This action is made final.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of co-pending Application No. 18581333.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-17 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-9 of Application No. 18581333. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Claim 1 of the current application corresponds to claim 1 of the co-pending (18581333).
Claim 2 of the current application corresponds to claim 2 of the co-pending (18581333).
Claim 3 of the current application corresponds to claim 3 of the co-pending (18581333).
Claim 4 of the current application corresponds to claim 2 of the co-pending (18581333).
Claim 5 of the current application corresponds to claim 2 of the co-pending (18581333).
Claim 6 of the current application corresponds to claim 7 of the co-pending (18581333).
Claim 7 of the current application corresponds to claim 7 of the co-pending (18581333).
Claim 8 of the current application corresponds to claim 8 of the co-pending (18581333).
Claim 9 of the current application corresponds to claim 9 of the co-pending (18581333).
Claim 10 of the current application corresponds to claim 7 of the co-pending (18581333).
Claim 11 of the current application corresponds to claim 2 of the co-pending (18581333).
Claim 12 of the current application corresponds to claim 2 of the co-pending (18581333).
Claim 13 of the current application corresponds to claim 2 of the co-pending (18581333).
Claim 14 of the current application corresponds to claim 4 of the co-pending (18581333).
Claim 15 of the current application corresponds to claim 1 of the co-pending (18581333).
Claim 16 of the current application corresponds to claim 1 of the co-pending (18581333).
Claim 17 of the current application corresponds to claim 9 of the co-pending (18581333).
The claims of the current application are broader than the claims of the co-pending application.
Claims rejections-35 U.S.C. 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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nandi(US.Pub.No.20250156896) in view of Hitching(US.Pub.No.20190182565).
Regarding claim 1, Nandi et al disclose a system for contextual modification of content based on multimodal extraction of metadata from said content(the system provides metadata related to media content; abstract; 0025), wherein said metadata is extracted by processing one or more scenes in said content to extract metadata(the system can retrieve or extract metadata associated with ads from database;0038) corresponding to multiple extraction mode and an embedding model for each extraction mode(the system can use embedding model for managing metadata; 0038; 0074) wherein an aggregated embedding model responsive to said extracted metadata (the system can retrieve or extract metadata associated with ads from database;0038) for each mode formulates an aggregated embedding comprising(the system is able to group series of metadata;0066-0067; 0038 );
a process controller (the system contains processors for processing data; 0044) including an embedding extractor( embedding model for processing metadata; abstract) responsive to a control input(users have the capability to input data and users have the capability of interacting with metadata; 0054; 0049 ) ;wherein said control input specifies one or more features defining a content modification opportunity( the system can provide temporal data related to advertising opportunity; 0003; 0021) and wherein said embedding extractor includes an embedding model( the system contains a plurality of embeddings models;0036) coordinated with said embedding model for one or more of said embedding modes to generate an opportunity embedding in the form of a vector( the system can predict advertising opportunity data based on embedding data and vectors associated with embeddings can be used to represent locations of metadata; 0036;0074);
a vector comparison processor( the system is capable of comparing data; 0022) for determining the distance between said opportunity embedding(the system is able to compute distance between two embeddings;0092) and said aggregated embedding to determine a content modification opportunity( the system can determine advertising opportunity based on embedding data and the system can provide ads based on metadata and based on geographic location of a specific audience; abstract; 0005;0007;0058; abstract).
But did not explicitly disclose; wherein said process controller is responsive to said vector comparison processor to generate edit control instructions indicating a modification of said content upon detection of said content modification opportunity; and a content editor responsive to said edit control instructions to modify said content and having a modified content output.
However, Hitching et al disclose wherein said process controller is responsive to said vector comparison processor to generate edit control instructions( the system can edit video content in order to generate video clips for a target audience; 0006-0007) indicating a modification of said content upon detection of said content modification opportunity(the system is able to use specific algorithm to edit video content in selecting candidate video clips; 0033-0034;0088;0020-0022;0037;0077;0043); and a content editor responsive to said edit control instructions to modify said content and having a modified content output( the system can dynamically adjust the streaming manifest in order to upload or insert advertisements in the main video stream according to specified criteria matching specific category or group of users or audience members;0038).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hitching to modify Nandi by providing options to edit or modify or alter video clips based on metadata for the purpose of improving the satisfaction of the users accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, Nandi et al did not explicitly disclose wherein said edit control instructions cause said content editor to add an overlay to said content.
However, Hitching et al disclose wherein said edit control instructions cause said content editor to add an overlay to said content(the system can overlay content or data; 0044;0015).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hitching to modify Nandi by providing options to edit or modify or alter video clips based on metadata for the purpose of improving viewing experiences of the users accordingly
Regarding claim 3, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Nandi et al did not explicitly disclose wherein said edit control instructions include an identification of an overlay stored in said creative library and said content editor is connected to said creative library.
However, Hitching et al disclose wherein said edit control instructions include an identification of an overlay stored in said creative library and said content editor is connected to said creative library(the system can provide URL related to overlaid content or data; 0037; 0084;0053).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hitching to modify Nandi by providing options to edit or modify or alter video clips based on metadata for the purpose of improving viewing experiences of the users accordingly
Regarding claim 5, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Nandi et al did not explicitly disclose wherein said edit control instructions include instructions for placement of said overlay in said modified content output.
However, Hitching et al disclose wherein said edit control instructions include instructions for placement of said overlay in said modified content output(the system can overlay content or data; 0044;0015).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hitching to modify Nandi by providing options to edit or modify or alter video clips based on metadata for the purpose of improving viewing experiences of the users accordingly
Regarding claim 7, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Nandi et al did not explicitly disclose wherein said process controller is responsive to said vector comparison processor to identify an indication of position and duration of a content modification opportunity and further comprising a modification selection server responsive to said opportunity to select a modification to apply to said content.
However, Hitching et al disclose wherein said process controller is responsive to said vector comparison processor to identify an indication of position and duration of a content modification opportunity(the system is able to provide trigger information related to insertion point of overlaid content; 0020-0021;004) and further comprising a modification selection server responsive to said opportunity to select a modification to apply to said content(0037;0075-0076;0085).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hitching to modify Nandi by providing options to edit or modify or alter video clips based on metadata for the purpose of improving viewing experiences of the users accordingly.
Regarding claim 9, Nandi et al did not explicitly disclose wherein said modification selection server is a competitive bid processor.
However, Hitching et al disclose wherein said modification selection server is a competitive bid processor(the system is able to use probability technique and engagement metrics to select a candidate clip to modify the video content; 0083; 0086;0020; 0035).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hitching to modify Nandi by introducing probability technique and engagement metrics for the purpose of selecting candidate clip to modify video content accordingly.
Regarding claim 10, Nandi et al did not explicitly disclose wherein said edit control instructions cause said content editor to interrupt said content and add a set of additional frames to said content during said interruption.
However, Hitching et al disclose wherein said edit control instructions cause said content editor to interrupt said content and add a set of additional frames to said content during said interruption(the system is able to insert or add frames or segments to the main video content based on trigger events; 0007; abstract; 0020-0021; 0075;0087).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hitching to modify Nandi by providing options to edit or modify or alter video clips based on metadata for the purpose of improving viewing experiences of the users accordingly.
Regarding claim 11, Nandi et al did not explicitly disclose further comprising a creative library, wherein said creative library stores one or more sets of additional frames and said edit control instructions specify a set of additional frames for use by said content editor.
However, Hitching et al disclose further comprising a creative library, wherein said creative library stores one or more sets of additional frames and said edit control instructions specify a set of additional frames for use by said content editor(the system is able to store multiple candidate frames or segments to edit video contents; 0007-0011;0020-0022).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hitching to modify Nandi by providing options to edit or modify or alter video clips based on metadata for the purpose of improving viewing experiences of the users accordingly
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 9.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN D SAINT CYR whose telephone number is (571)270-3224. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 5712727527. 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.
/JEAN D SAINT CYR/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
/Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights