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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-8, and 11-18 are amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh (US 2007/0033531), hereinafter in view of Marsh, in view of Lynch (US 2016/0162472), hereinafter referred to as Lynch.
8. Regarding claims 1 and 11, Marsh discloses a method comprising: retrieving metadata associated with a media asset, wherein the media asset metadata comprises a description of the media asset including a plurality of tag lines (paragraphs 106-107 wherein tag line fields and search terms are selectively stripped out of the metadata file of the primary content);
analyzing the plurality of tag lines to determine characteristics associated with each tag line of the plurality of tag lines (paragraph 114 wherein metadata or other similar information is analyzed and forwarded to the search entity);
selecting a tag line from the plurality of tag lines based at least in part on the determined characteristics (paragraphs 68 and 105 wherein metadata files are included that specify the relevant search terms or primitives for that content).
However, Marsh is silent in regards to disclosing selecting a term, of a plurality of terms associated with the selected tag line, with a highest weight based at least in part on a linguistic element analysis of the selected tag line, wherein the linguistic element analysis comprises determining at least one of a type of word or a part of speech corresponding to each term, of the plurality of terms, associated with the selected tag line; executing a search for a relevant term suitable for replacing the selected term of the selected tag line; and displaying the metadata associated with the media asset, wherein the displaying comprises generating a customized view of the description of the media asset for display by: replacing the selected term of the selected tag line with the relevant term in the customized view of the description; and highlighting a portion of the customized view of the description of the media asset having the relevant term.
Lynch discloses selecting a term, of a plurality of terms associated with the selected tag line, with a highest weight based at least in part on a linguistic element analysis of the selected tag line, wherein the linguistic element analysis comprises determining at least one of a type of word or a part of speech corresponding to each term, of the plurality of terms, associated with the selected tag line (paragraphs 52-53 wherein the alternative content platform may replace word highlighted in a document and/or message with a synonym);
executing a search for a relevant term suitable for replacing the selected term of the selected tag line (paragraph 53 wherein alternative content platform may cause one of the synonyms to replace the word when one of the synonyms is selected);
and displaying the metadata associated with the media asset, wherein the displaying comprises generating a customized view of the description of the media asset for display by: replacing the selected term of the selected tag line with the relevant term in the customized view of the description (paragraph 54 wherein the alternative content platform may continuously determine interaction input and alternative content with respect to content until the user causes the alternative content platform to stop);
and highlighting a portion of the customized view of the description of the media asset having the relevant term (paragraphs 52-53 wherein the alternative content platform may replace word highlighted in a document and/or message with a synonym).
Lynch provides motivation to combine the references wherein apparatus further comprises means for causing, at least in part, a presentation of one or more alternative textual content in at least one user interface of the at least one device (paragraph 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Marsh with the teachings of Lynch (paragraph 6).
9. Regarding claims 2 and 12, Marsh discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the characteristics associated with each tag line of the plurality of tag lines comprises at least one of: the existence of the tag line in another content source, popularity or frequency of use of the tag line and relevance of the tag line to a user based at least in part on a user's preference profile (paragraph 160 wherein system can be screened against the historical data, and matching or similar entries given a higher rank or weighting for display to the user)..
10. Regarding claims 3 and 13, Marsh discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the selecting the term, of the plurality of terms associated with the selected tag line, with the highest weight comprises: determining the characteristics associated with the selected tag line based at least in part on searching information and media sources (paragraph 160 wherein system can be screened against the historical data, and matching or similar entries given a higher rank or weighting for display to the user);
assigning a weight to each term of the plurality of terms associated with the selected tag line based at least in part on a relative importance of the characteristics associated with the selected tag line (paragraph 153-154 wherein the metadata can be analyzed by an indigenous or third-party algorithm in order to select or derive the best search terms for the particular context);
ranking each term of the plurality of terms associated with the selected tag line based at least in part on the assigned weight (paragraph 160 wherein system can be screened against the historical data, and matching or similar entries given a higher rank or weighting for display to the user);
and determining the term, of the plurality of terms associated with the selected tag line, with the highest assigned weight (paragraphs 156-157 wherein (i) rank the ten results based on this metric, and then (i) select only the top "n" results (e.g., top three or five) for display to the user).
11. Regarding claims 4 and 14, Marsh discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the selecting the term, of the plurality of terms associated with the selected tag line, comprises: assigning a weight to each type of word or each part of speech associated with the selected tag line (paragraph 160 wherein system can be screened against the historical data, and matching or similar entries given a higher rank or weighting for display to the user);
ranking each type of word or each part of speech associated with the selected tag line based at least in part on the assigned weight (paragraph 160 wherein system can be screened against the historical data, and matching or similar entries given a higher rank or weighting for display to the user);
and determining the type of word or the part of speech, associated with the selected tag line, with the highest assigned weight (paragraph 146 wherein speech recognition algorithm (such as for example the IBM "ViaVoice" product) can be used to supply user inputs to the client device);
and selecting the type of word or the part of speech with the highest assigned weight as the selected term (paragraph 146 wherein speech recognition algorithm (such as for example the IBM "ViaVoice" product) can be used to supply user inputs to the client device).
12. Regarding claims 5 and 15, Marsh discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving the description associated with the media asset (paragraphs 118-119 wherein metadata contained in the file or other data structure may also be used as an input to a front-end processing module, such as to generate derivative or modified search queries);
and analyzing the plurality of terms included in the description of the media asset to determine the media asset metadata associated with the description of the media asset (paragraph 153 wherein the metadata can be analyzed by an indigenous or third-party algorithm in order to select or derive the best search terms for the particular context).
13. Regarding claims 6 and 16, Marsh discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising determining that the media asset metadata associated with the description of the media asset includes tag lines based at least in part on analyzing audio and video clips related to the media asset (paragraph 146 wherein speech recognition algorithm (such as for example the IBM "ViaVoice" product) can be used to supply user inputs to the client device).
14. Regarding claims 7 and 17, Marsh discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising determining that the description of the media asset includes tag lines by: retrieving a set of subtitles associated with the media asset (paragraphs 118-119 wherein metadata contained in the file or other data structure may also be used as an input to a front-end processing module, such as to generate derivative or modified search queries);
comparing a plurality of segments of the set of subtitles with segments associated with other content to determine a match (paragraph 153 wherein the algorithm might then select the most unique words (i.e., those with the lowest frequency of historical use), and provide only these selected terms to the search engine, in effect focusing on the most distinctive terms to produce the most relevant results);
and based at least in part on determining that a segment of the plurality of segments appeared in the other content more than a threshold number of times: determining that the segment is a tag line (paragraphs 156-157 wherein (i) rank the ten results based on this metric, and then (i) select only the top "n" results (e.g., top three or five) for display to the user).
15. Regarding claims 8 and 18, Lynch discloses the method of claim 5, wherein generating the customized view of the description of the media asset for display further comprises placing the relevant term in a prominent position (paragraphs 52-53 wherein the alternative content platform may replace word highlighted in a document and/or message with a synonym).
16. Regarding claims 9 and 19, Marsh discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the tag line is a slogan or a catchphrase that describes the media asset (paragraph 104 wherein metadata query contains a given phrase or search string).
17. Regarding claims 10 and 20, Marsh discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the relevant term is a synonym term suitable for replacing the selected term of the selected tag line in the description of the media asset (paragraph 28 wherein system may query keyword senses to include relevant semantic synonyms for the query keyword).
Conclusion
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES N HICKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7 EST.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. 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.
/CHARLES N HICKS/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
/BENJAMIN R BRUCKART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights