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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/07/2025 with respect to claims 31-50 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In re pages 7-8, Applicant states that “Without conceding to the allegations, and solely to advance prosecution of this application, Applicant has amended independent claims 31 and 42 to recite "determining a respective importance score for each respective frame of a plurality of frames of a media asset, wherein the respective importance score is based at least in part on the plurality of criteria, and at least in part on importance data of a scene to which the respective frame belongs." Claims 32, 39, 43, and 48 have been amended to conform with the amendment of independent claims 31 and 42. The Office Action relies on Gupta for allegedly teaching determining a respective score for each of a plurality of frames of a media asset, as previously recited by Applicant's independent claims. Gupta describes determining a "confidence score" or "interest level" for each scene in a media asset. See, e.g., Gupta, [0025]-[0026]. First, Gupta determines the alleged score at the scene level, whereas Applicant's claims recite determining a score for each frame of the media asset. Nowhere does Gupta disclose or suggest analyzing or determining scores for individual frames of a media asset. For at least this reason, Gupta fails to teach the subject matter for which it is cited. Second, Gupta describes confidence score or interest level, relating a scene to a user's interest. The confidence score is intended to indicate a likelihood that the user will switch to a different scene. In contrast, Applicant's amended independent claims recite an "importance score" for a frame that is based in part on criteria selected from a user profile and in part on importance data for the scene of which the frame is a part. The importance score is intended to indicate whether a particular frame should be displayed as a thumbnail during a scrub operation. The confidence score described in Gupta simply cannot be used in this manner. Sharifi and Singh were cited for allegedly teaching other limitations of Applicant's independent claims and also fail to teach the subject matter discussed above. Sharifi and Singh therefore fail to cure the deficiencies of Gupta. The Office Action rejects claims 32, 37, 43, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being obvious from Gupta in view of Sharifi, Singh, and Kumar et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0161174 ("Kumar"). The Office Action rejects claims 35 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being obvious from Gupta in view of Sharifi, Singh, and Zhang et al. U.S. Patent Publication No.202/0392278 ("Zhang"). The Office Action rejects claims 40, 41, 49, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being obvious from Gupta in view of Sharifi, Singh, and Hunt et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0158326 ("Hunt"). Each of Kumar, Shang, and Hunt was cited for allegedly teaching other features of Applicant's claims and also fail to show or suggest the subject matter at issue. Thus, Gupta, Sharifi, Singh, Kumar, Zhang, and Hunt, whether taken alone or in any permissible combination, fail to teach or render obvious all the limitations of Applicant's independent claims. Accordingly, independent claims 31 and 42, and all claims which depend therefrom, are patentable over the art of record. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. For instance, Gupta discloses the following: First, control circuitry 404 determines the characteristic of the current portion of the content. For example, the control circuitry can determine that a characteristic of a portion of a movie is its orchestral music score that pairs with dramatic scenes as described in fig. 6 paragraph 62. Second, in this example, each frame of the movie could be annotated with a corresponding musical score that the system uses to determine the characteristic as described in fig. 6 paragraph 62. Third, at step 610, the system determines a respective confidence score of each of the related content segments to which a user might switch from the current portion as described in fig. 6 paragraph 67. Fourth, the confidence score of a segment is the extent that the user is interested in the segment as described in fig. 6 paragraph 67. Fifth, at step 706, the system determines related content segments related to the current portion of the content as described in fig. 7 paragraph 77. Sixth, for example, a movie may have a metadata file associated with each frame of video, wherein the file notes which related videoframes and/or the characteristics at which they are related to a respective frame as described in fig. 7 paragraph 77. Seventh, with the related content segments, the system may proceed to step 610 to determine the confidence score of the respective content segments as described in figs. 6-7 paragraph 77. Thus, as described above, Gupta discloses determining a respective confidence score of each of the related content segments/frames/portions. As a result, the Applicant’s statements are unsupported by Gupta.
In fact, Gupta discloses the following claimed limitations of independent claim 31 that recites “selecting a plurality of criteria based at least in part on data from a viewer profile” (see ¶ 25 for selecting a plurality of criteria based at least in part on data from a viewer profile (i.e. the system determines that, based on a characteristic in the respective scene and an attribute in the user profile, the user would be likely to navigate from the fourth scene 310 to the fifth scene 311, sixth scene 312, seventh scene 313, and eighth scene 314, with confidence scores or interest levels 301-304 of 8%, 5%, 45%, and 40%, respectively (e.g., 40 of 100 times the user navigates away from the fourth scene, the user will navigate to the eighth scene) as described in fig. 3 paragraph 26). Also, see fig. 6 paragraph 66); “determining a respective importance score for each respective frame of a plurality of frames of a media asset, wherein: the respective importance score is based at least in part on the plurality of criteria, and at least in part on importance data of a scene to which the respective frame belongs, and the media asset is being provided to a device associated with the viewer profile” (see fig. 4 ¶s 25, 28 for determining a respective importance score for each respective frame of a plurality of frames of a media asset, wherein: the respective importance score is based at least in part on the plurality of criteria, and at least in part on importance data of a scene to which the respective frame belongs, and the media asset is being provided to a device associated with the viewer profile (i.e. the system determines that, based on a characteristic in the respective scene and an attribute in the user profile, the user would be likely to navigate from the fourth scene 310 to the fifth scene 311, sixth scene 312, seventh scene 313, and eighth scene 314, with confidence scores or interest levels 301-304 of 8%, 5%, 45%, and 40%, respectively (e.g., 40 of 100 times the user navigates away from the fourth scene, the user will navigate to the eighth scene) as described in fig. 3 paragraph 26, furthermore, the system may determine to, when the highest two confidence scores are both higher than some threshold confidence score, buffer both the corresponding segments as described in fig. 3 paragraph 27, moreover, at step 706, the system determines related content segments related to the current portion of the content, the related content segments are obtained from a metadata file, for example, a movie may have a metadata file associated with each frame of video, wherein the file notes which related videoframes and/or the characteristics at which they are related to a respective frame, with the related content segments, the system may proceed to step 610 to determine the confidence score of the respective content segments as described in figs. 6-7 paragraph 77). Also, see fig. 6 paragraph 66)
On the other hand, Sharifi discloses the following claimed limitations of independent claim 31 that recites “receiving a scrub request to perform a scrubbing operation for the media asset, wherein the scrub request is received from the device” (see ¶s 15, 32 for receiving a scrub request to perform a scrubbing operation for the media asset, wherein the scrub request is received from the device (i.e. the scrubber 124 first receives 505 scrub input from a user, typically in the form of a button press or touch-and-drag action as described in figs. 1, 5 paragraph 31)); “and based on receiving the scrub request: identifying a frame of the plurality of frames based at least in part on the respective importance score” (see ¶s 15, 32 for based on receiving the scrub request: identifying a frame of the plurality of frames based at least in part on the respective importance score (i.e. the scrubber 124 first receives 505 scrub input from a user, typically in the form of a button press or touch-and-drag action, the scrubber then identifies 510 the desired content range, which includes at least one discrete section of the digital content item, the scrubber then evaluates 515 bias scores for each discrete section in the content range and identifies one or more highest-scoring sections as described in figs. 1, 5 paragraph 31))
Furthermore, Singh discloses the following claimed limitations of independent claim 31 that recites “providing, to the device, the identified frame as a preview overlaid over the media asset” (see ¶ 59 for providing, to the device, the identified frame as a preview overlaid over the media asset (i.e. the media guidance application may generate for display a preview overlay (e.g., overlay 112, 116, 122, 126, 130) over media asset 102, for example, the media guidance application may generate for display a preview overlay (e.g., an overlay displaying an image over the middle of media asset 102 being displayed) over media asset 102 (e.g., Kill Bill Vol. 1) as described in fig. 1 paragraph 113))
Therefore, the combination of Gupta, Sharifi and Singh discloses all the claimed limitations of independent claim 31, and also, all the claimed limitations of independent claim 42 that recites similar features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 42, 44, 45 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2020/0128294 A1)(hereinafter Gupta), and further in view of Sharifi et al. (US 2017/0177577 A1)(hereinafter Sharifi), and further in view of Singh et al. (US 2019/0208282 A1)(hereinafter Singh).
Re claim 31, Gupta discloses a method, comprising: selecting a plurality of criteria based at least in part on data from a viewer profile (see ¶ 25 for selecting a plurality of criteria based at least in part on data from a viewer profile (i.e. the system determines that, based on a characteristic in the respective scene and an attribute in the user profile, the user would be likely to navigate from the fourth scene 310 to the fifth scene 311, sixth scene 312, seventh scene 313, and eighth scene 314, with confidence scores or interest levels 301-304 of 8%, 5%, 45%, and 40%, respectively (e.g., 40 of 100 times the user navigates away from the fourth scene, the user will navigate to the eighth scene) as described in fig. 3 paragraph 26). Also, see fig. 6 paragraph 66); determining a respective importance score for each respective frame of a plurality of frames of a media asset, wherein: the respective importance score is based at least in part on the plurality of criteria, and at least in part on importance data of a scene to which the respective frame belongs, and the media asset is being provided to a device associated with the viewer profile (see fig. 4 ¶s 25, 28 for determining a respective importance score for each respective frame of a plurality of frames of a media asset, wherein: the respective importance score is based at least in part on the plurality of criteria, and at least in part on importance data of a scene to which the respective frame belongs, and the media asset is being provided to a device associated with the viewer profile (i.e. the system determines that, based on a characteristic in the respective scene and an attribute in the user profile, the user would be likely to navigate from the fourth scene 310 to the fifth scene 311, sixth scene 312, seventh scene 313, and eighth scene 314, with confidence scores or interest levels 301-304 of 8%, 5%, 45%, and 40%, respectively (e.g., 40 of 100 times the user navigates away from the fourth scene, the user will navigate to the eighth scene) as described in fig. 3 paragraph 26, furthermore, the system may determine to, when the highest two confidence scores are both higher than some threshold confidence score, buffer both the corresponding segments as described in fig. 3 paragraph 27, moreover, at step 706, the system determines related content segments related to the current portion of the content, the related content segments are obtained from a metadata file, for example, a movie may have a metadata file associated with each frame of video, wherein the file notes which related videoframes and/or the characteristics at which they are related to a respective frame, with the related content segments, the system may proceed to step 610 to determine the confidence score of the respective content segments as described in figs. 6-7 paragraph 77). Also, see fig. 6 paragraphs 62, 66, 67)
Gupta fails to explicitly teach receiving a scrub request to perform a scrubbing operation for the media asset, wherein the scrub request is received from the device; and based on receiving the scrub request: identifying a frame of the plurality of frames based at least in part on the respective importance score. However, the reference of Sharifi explicitly teaches receiving a scrub request to perform a scrubbing operation for the media asset, wherein the scrub request is received from the device (see ¶s 15, 32 for receiving a scrub request to perform a scrubbing operation for the media asset, wherein the scrub request is received from the device (i.e. the scrubber 124 first receives 505 scrub input from a user, typically in the form of a button press or touch-and-drag action as described in figs. 1, 5 paragraph 31)); and based on receiving the scrub request: identifying a frame of the plurality of frames based at least in part on the respective importance score (see ¶s 15, 32 for based on receiving the scrub request: identifying a frame of the plurality of frames based at least in part on the respective importance score (i.e. the scrubber 124 first receives 505 scrub input from a user, typically in the form of a button press or touch-and-drag action, the scrubber then identifies 510 the desired content range, which includes at least one discrete section of the digital content item, the scrubber then evaluates 515 bias scores for each discrete section in the content range and identifies one or more highest-scoring sections as described in figs. 1, 5 paragraph 31))
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of Gupta and Sharifi as a whole, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature (scrub) into the system of Gupta as taught by Sharifi.
One will be motivated to incorporate the above feature into the system of Gupta as taught by Sharifi for the benefit of having a viewer 122 which includes a scrubber 124 that allows a user to navigate through the digital content being displayed on the viewer 122, wherein using the scrubber 124, the user may move forward and backward through the digital content being displayed in order to have a user friendly interaction when allowing a user to navigate through the digital content being displayed on the viewer 122 (see fig. 1 ¶ 14)
Furthermore, Gupta fails to explicitly teach and providing, to the device, the identified frame as a preview overlaid over the media asset. However, the reference of Singh explicitly teaches and providing, to the device, the identified frame as a preview overlaid over the media asset (see ¶ 59 for providing, to the device, the identified frame as a preview overlaid over the media asset (i.e. the media guidance application may generate for display a preview overlay (e.g., overlay 112, 116, 122, 126, 130) over media asset 102, for example, the media guidance application may generate for display a preview overlay (e.g., an overlay displaying an image over the middle of media asset 102 being displayed) over media asset 102 (e.g., Kill Bill Vol. 1) as described in fig. 1 paragraph 113))
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of Gupta and Singh as a whole, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature (preview) into the system of Gupta as taught by Singh.
One will be motivated to incorporate the above feature into the system of Gupta as taught by Singh for the benefit of having a media guidance application which may generate for display a preview overlay over the media asset, for example, the media guidance application may generate for display a preview overlay (e.g., an overlay displaying an image over the middle of the media asset being displayed) over the media asset (e.g., Kill Bill Volume 1) in order to ease the processing time when generating for display a preview overlay over the media asset (see ¶ 36)
Re claim 33, the combination of Gupta, Sharifi and Singh as discussed in claim 31 above discloses all the claimed limitations but fails to explicitly teach wherein: the scrub request is to perform the scrubbing operation for a portion of the media asset; and the identified frame is a frame of the portion of the media asset. However, the reference of Sharifi explicitly teaches wherein: the scrub request is to perform the scrubbing operation for a portion of the media asset (see ¶s 15, 32 for the scrub request is to perform the scrubbing operation for a portion of the media asset (i.e. the scrubber 124 first receives 505 scrub input from a user, typically in the form of a button press or touch-and-drag action, the scrubber then identifies 510 the desired content range, which includes at least one discrete section of the digital content item as described in figs. 1, 5 paragraph 31)); and the identified frame is a frame of the portion of the media asset (see ¶s 15, 32 for the identified frame is a frame of the portion of the media asset (i.e. the scrubber then identifies 510 the desired content range, which includes at least one discrete section of the digital content item as described in figs. 1, 5 paragraph 31))
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of Gupta, Sharifi and Singh as a whole, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature (scrub) into the system of Gupta as taught by Sharifi.
Per claim 33, Gupta and Sharifi are combined for the same motivation as set forth in claim 31 above.
Re claim 34, the combination of Gupta, Sharifi and Singh as discussed in claim 33 above discloses all the claimed limitations but fails to explicitly teach wherein the portion of the media asset associated with the scrubbing operation is different from a portion of the media asset being provided to the device when the scrub request is received. However, the reference of Sharifi explicitly teaches wherein the portion of the media asset associated with the scrubbing operation is different from a portion of the media asset being provided to the device when the scrub request is received (see ¶s 15, 32 for the portion of the media asset associated with the scrubbing operation is different from a portion of the media asset being provided to the device when the scrub request is received (i.e. the scrubber 124 first receives 505 scrub input from a user, typically in the form of a button press or touch-and-drag action, the scrubber then identifies 510 the desired content range, which includes at least one discrete section of the digital content item, the scrubber then evaluates 515 bias scores for each discrete section in the content range and identifies one or more highest-scoring sections, finally, the scrubber displays 520 the highest scoring content sections as described in figs. 1, 5 paragraph 31))
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of Gupta, Sharifi and Singh as a whole, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature (scrub) into the system of Gupta as taught by Sharifi.
Per claim 34, Gupta and Sharifi are combined for the same motivation as set forth in claim 31 above.
Re claim 36, the combination of Gupta, Sharifi and Singh as discussed in claim 33 above discloses all the claimed limitations but fails to explicitly teach further comprising determining, using metadata of the media asset, the portion of the media asset corresponding to the scrub request. However, the reference of Sharifi explicitly teaches further comprising determining, using metadata of the media asset, the portion of the media asset corresponding to the scrub request (see ¶s 15, 32 for determining, using metadata of the media asset, the portion of the media asset corresponding to the scrub request (i.e. the content analysis module 225 annotates each section of a digital content item by creating a layer of metadata which describes the identified entities, the metadata produced by the content analysis module 225 may be organized by frame or track, the scrubber biasing module 112 further includes a content annotations database 210 which is configured to organize and store content annotations and/or metadata produced by the content analysis module 225 as described in fig. 2 paragraph 23, furthermore, the scrubber 124 first receives 505 scrub input from a user, typically in the form of a button press or touch-and-drag action, the scrubber then identifies 510 the desired content range, which includes at least one discrete section of the digital content item as described in figs. 1, 5 paragraph 31))
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of Gupta, Sharifi and Singh as a whole, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature (scrub) into the system of Gupta as taught by Sharifi.
Per claim 36, Gupta and Sharifi are combined for the same motivation as set forth in claim 31 above.
Re claim 38, the combination of Gupta, Sharifi and Singh as discussed in claim 31 above discloses all the claim limitations with additional claimed feature taught by Gupta wherein the plurality of criteria comprises indications of at least one topic that a viewer corresponding to the viewer profile likes and at least one topic that the viewer dislikes (see fig. 7 ¶ 74 for indications of at least one topic that a viewer corresponding to the viewer profile likes and at least one topic that the viewer dislikes (i.e. the user profile indicates that the user likes the music of a movie the user is watching, and the system will find the segments closest to the current portion that also have the background music, the user in this example may prefer to stay within a certain time of the current portion as opposed to navigating farther away than a few segments away, an indirect relationship may include an opposing relationship to the characteristic of the current portion, for example, the current portion is characterized as violent, and the user does not like violence as described in fig. 6 paragraph 66))
Re claim 39, the combination of Gupta, Sharifi and Singh as discussed in claim 31 above discloses all the claim limitations with additional claimed feature taught by Gupta wherein: the media asset comprises metadata that indicates content of each frame (see ¶ 31 for the media asset comprises metadata that indicates content of each frame (i.e. the content data may include metadata files pertaining to the content or content segments (e.g., characteristics of content portions, content segments related to a current portion of content based on a characteristic) as described in paragraph 48, furthermore, control circuitry 404 determines the characteristic of the current portion of the content, for example, the control circuitry can determine that a characteristic of a portion of a movie is its orchestral music score that pairs with dramatic scenes, in this example, each frame of the movie could be annotated with a corresponding musical score that the system uses to determine the characteristic as described in fig. 6 paragraph 62). Also, see fig. 7 paragraph 77); and determining the respective importance score for each of the plurality of frames is further based on the metadata (see ¶s 31, 48 for determining the respective importance score for each of the plurality of frames is further based on the metadata (i.e. control circuitry 404 determines the characteristic of the current portion of the content, for example, the control circuitry can determine that a characteristic of a portion of a movie is its orchestral music score that pairs with dramatic scenes, in this example, each frame of the movie could be annotated with a corresponding musical score that the system uses to determine the characteristic as described in fig. 6 paragraph 62, furthermore, the system determines a respective confidence score of each of the related content segments to which a user might switch from the current portion, the confidence score of a segment is the extent that the user is interested in the segment as described at step 610 of fig. 6 paragraph 67). Also, see fig. 7 paragraph 77)
Re claim 42, Gupta discloses a system comprising: a memory storing instructions (see ¶ 29 for a memory storing instructions (i.e. instructions stored in memory (e.g., storage 408) as shown in fig. 4)); and control circuitry configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory to (see ¶ 29 for control circuitry configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory (i.e. control circuitry 404 executes instructions for an application stored in memory (e.g., storage 408) as shown in fig. 4)): select a plurality of criteria based at least in part on data from a viewer profile (see ¶ 25 for select a plurality of criteria based at least in part on data from a viewer profile (i.e. the system determines that, based on a characteristic in the respective scene and an attribute in the user profile, the user would be likely to navigate from the fourth scene 310 to the fifth scene 311, sixth scene 312, seventh scene 313, and eighth scene 314, with confidence scores or interest levels 301-304 of 8%, 5%, 45%, and 40%, respectively (e.g., 40 of 100 times the user navigates away from the fourth scene, the user will navigate to the eighth scene) as described in fig. 3 paragraph 26). Also, see fig. 6 paragraph 66); determine a respective importance score for each respective frame of a plurality of frames of a media asset, wherein: the respective importance score is based at least in part on the plurality of criteria, and at least in part on importance data of a scene to which the respective frame belongs; and the media asset is being provided to a device associated with the viewer profile (see fig. 4 ¶s 25, 28 for determine a respective importance score for each respective frame of a plurality of frames of a media asset, wherein: the respective importance score is based at least in part on the plurality of criteria, and at least in part on importance data of a scene to which the respective frame belongs; and the media asset is being provided to a device associated with the viewer profile (i.e. the system determines that, based on a characteristic in the respective scene and an attribute in the user profile, the user would be likely to navigate from the fourth scene 310 to the fifth scene 311, sixth scene 312, seventh scene 313, and eighth scene 314, with confidence scores or interest levels 301-304 of 8%, 5%, 45%, and 40%, respectively (e.g., 40 of 100 times the user navigates away from the fourth scene, the user will navigate to the eighth scene) as described in fig. 3 paragraph 26, furthermore, the system may determine to, when the highest two confidence scores are both higher than some threshold confidence score, buffer both the corresponding segments as described in fig. 3 paragraph 27, moreover, at step 706, the system determines related content segments related to the current portion of the content, the related content segments are obtained from a metadata file, for example, a movie may have a metadata file associated with each frame of video, wherein the file notes which related videoframes and/or the characteristics at which they are related to a respective frame, with the related content segments, the system may proceed to step 610 to determine the confidence score of the respective content segments as described in figs. 6-7 paragraph 77). Also, see fig. 6 paragraphs 62, 66, 67)
Gupta fails to explicitly teach receive a scrub request to perform a scrubbing operation for the media asset, wherein the scrub request is received from the device; and based on receiving the scrub request: identify a frame of the plurality of frames based at least in part on the respective importance score. However, the reference of Sharifi explicitly teaches receive a scrub request to perform a scrubbing operation for the media asset, wherein the scrub request is received from the device (see ¶s 15, 32 for receive a scrub request to perform a scrubbing operation for the media asset, wherein the scrub request is received from the device (i.e. the scrubber 124 first receives 505 scrub input from a user, typically in the form of a button press or touch-and-drag action as described in figs. 1, 5 paragraph 31)); and based on receiving the scrub request: identify a frame of the plurality of frames based at least in part on the respective importance score (see ¶s 15, 32 for based on receiving the scrub request: identify a frame of the plurality of frames based at least in part on the respective importance score (i.e. the scrubber 124 first receives 505 scrub input from a user, typically in the form of a button press or touch-and-drag action, the scrubber then identifies 510 the desired content range, which includes at least one discrete section of the digital content item, the scrubber then evaluates 515 bias scores for each discrete section in the content range and identifies one or more highest-scoring sections as described in figs. 1, 5 paragraph 31))
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of Gupta and Sharifi as a whole, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature (scrub) into the system of Gupta as taught by Sharifi.
One will be motivated to incorporate the above feature into the system of Gupta as taught by Sharifi for the benefit of having a viewer 122 which includes a scrubber 124 that allows a user to navigate through the digital content being displayed on the viewer 122, wherein using the scrubber 124, the user may move forward and backward through the digital content being displayed in order to have a user friendly interaction when allowing a user to navigate through the digital content being displayed on the viewer 122 (see fig. 1 ¶ 14)
Furthermore, Gupta fails to explicitly teach and provide, to the device, the identified frame as a preview overlaid over the media asset. However, the reference of Singh explicitly teaches and provide, to the device, the identified frame as a preview overlaid over the media asset (see ¶ 59 for provide, to the device, the identified frame as a preview overlaid over the media asset (i.e. the media guidance application may generate for display a preview overlay (e.g., overlay 112, 116, 122, 126, 130) over media asset 102, for example, the media guidance application may generate for display a preview overlay (e.g., an overlay displaying an image over the middle of media asset 102 being displayed) over media asset 102 (e.g., Kill Bill Vol. 1) as described in fig. 1 paragraph 113))
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of Gupta and Singh as a whole, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature (preview) into the system of Gupta as taught by Singh.
One will be motivated to incorporate the above feature into the system of Gupta as taught by Singh for the benefit of having a media guidance application which may generate for display a preview overlay over the media asset, for example, the media guidance application may generate for display a preview overlay (e.g., an overlay displaying an image over the middle of the media asset being displayed) over the media asset (e.g., Kill Bill Volume 1) in order to ease the processing time when generating for display a preview overlay over the media asset (see ¶ 36)
Re claim 44, the combination of Gupta, Sharifi and Singh as discussed in claim 33 above discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 44.
Re claim 45, the combination of Gupta, Sharifi and Singh as discussed in claim 34 above discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 45.
Re claim 48, the combination of Gupta, Sharifi and Singh as discussed in claims 39 and claim 42 above discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 48.
Claims 32, 37, 43 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2020/0128294 A1)(hereinafter Gupta) as applied to claims 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 42, 44, 45 and 48 above, and further in view of Sharifi et al. (US 2017/0177577 A1)(hereinafter Sharifi), and further in view of Singh et al. (US 2019/0208282 A1)(hereinafter Singh), and further in view of Kumar et al. (US 2015/0161174 A1)(hereinafter Kumar).
Re claim 32, the combination of Gupta, Sharifi and Singh as discussed in claim 31 above discloses all the claimed limitations but fails to explicitly teach further comprising: determining a respective rank for each of the plurality of frames of the media asset; and determining an adjusted rank for each of the plurality of frames based at least in part on the respective rank and the respective importance score, wherein identifying the frame of the plurality of frames is further based on the adjusted rank. However, the reference of Kumar explicitly teaches further comprising: determining a respective rank for each of the plurality of frames of the media asset (see ¶ 43 for determining a respective rank for each of the plurality of frames of the media asset (i.e. the diffusion module 2060 receives a group of pre-ranked images, e.g., 1,000 or more images ranked by the ranking module 2052 as shown in fig. 4)); and determining an adjusted rank for each of the plurality of frames based at least in part on the respective rank and the respective importance score, wherein identifying the frame of the plurality of frames is further based on the adjusted rank (see ¶ 41 for determining an adjusted rank for each of the plurality of frames based at least in part on the respective rank and the respective importance score, wherein identifying the frame of the plurality of frames is further based on the adjusted rank (i.e. the process 4000 also includes determining 4040 a new score for each of one or more images as described in fig. 4 paragraph 42, furthermore, the diffusion module 2052 modifies the ranking of the images as described in fig. 4 paragraph 43))
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of Gupta, Sharifi, Singh and Kumar as a whole, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature (rank) into the system of Gupta as taught by Kumar.
One will be motivated to incorporate the above feature into the system of Gupta as taught by Kumar for the benefit of ranking each of one or more images in the plurality of images according to the image's new score, wherein the scores can be provided to the ranking module 2052 in order to rank the images, wherein the diffusion module 2060 receives a group of pre-ranked images, e.g., 1,000 or more images ranked by the ranking module 2052, wherein the diffusion module 2052 modifies the ranking of the images in order to ease the processing time when ranking and modifying each of one or more images (see fig. 4 ¶s 6, 35, 43)
Re claim 37, the combination of Gupta, Sharifi, Singh and Kumar as discussed in claim 32 above discloses all the claimed limitations but fails to explicitly teach wherein: the scrub request is a request to perform the scrubbing operation for a portion of the media asset, the portion of the media asset comprising at least two frames. However, the reference of Sharifi explicitly teaches wherein: the scrub request is a request to perform the scrubbing operation for a portion of the media asset, the portion of the media asset comprising at least two frames (see ¶ 32 for the scrub request is a request to perform the scrubbing operation for a portion of the media asset, the portion of the media asset comprising at least two frames (i.e. digital content items are composed of one or more sections, for example, each frame of a video may constitute a section as described in fig. 1 paragraph 15, furthermore, the scrubber 124 first receives 505 scrub input from a user, typically in the form of a button press or touch-and-drag action, the scrubber then identifies 510 the desired content range, which includes at least one discrete section of the digital content item as described in fig. 5 paragraph 31))
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of Gupta, Sharifi, Singh and Kumar as a whole, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature (scrub) into the system of Gupta as taught by Sharifi.
One will be motivated to incorporate the above feature into the system of Gupta as taught by Sharifi for the benefit of having a viewer 122 which includes a scrubber 124 that allows a user to navigate through the digital content being displayed on the viewer 122, wherein using the scrubber 124, the user may move forward and backward through the digital content being displayed in order to have a user friendly interaction when allowing a user to navigate through the digital content being displayed on the viewer 122 (see fig. 1 ¶ 14)
Furthermore, Gupta fails to explicitly teach and the identified frame is a frame from the at least two frames of the portion of the media asset having the highest adjusted rank. However, the reference of Kumar explicitly teaches and the identified frame is a frame from the at least two frames of the portion of the media asset having the highest adjusted rank (see ¶s 42, 50 for the identified frame is a frame from the at least two frames of the portion of the media asset having the highest adjusted rank (i.e. the diffusion module 2060 receives a group of pre-ranked images, e.g., 1,000 or more images ranked by the ranking module 2052 as described in fig. 4 paragraph 43))
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of Gupta, Sharifi, Singh and Kumar as a whole, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature (rank) into the system of Gupta as taught by Kumar.
Per claim 37, Gupta, Sharifi, Singh and Kumar are combined for the same motivation as set forth in claim 32 above.
Re claim 43, the combination of Gupta, Sharifi, Singh and Kumar as discussed in claim 32, and also, claim 42 above discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 43.
Re claim 47, the combination of Gupta, Sharifi, Singh and Kumar as discussed in claim 37 above discloses all the claimed limitations claim 47.
Claims 35 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2020/0128294 A1)(hereinafter Gupta) as applied to claims 1-31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 42, 44, 45 and 48 above, and further in view of Sharifi et al. (US 2017/0177577 A1)(hereinafter Sharifi), and further in view of Singh et al. (US 2019/0208282 A1)(hereinafter Singh), and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0392278 A1)(hereinafter Zhang).
Re claim 35, the combination of Gupta, Sharifi and Singh as discussed in claim 33 above discloses all the claimed limitations but fails to explicitly teach wherein: the portion of the media asset has a start time and an end time different than a start time and end time of the media asset; a progress bar indicates the start time and end time of the media asset; a slider on the progress bar indicates a play position of the media asset; and the method further comprises generating, for display, an indicator on a portion of the progress bar that indicates the start time and end time of the portion of the media asset. However, the reference of Zhang explicitly teaches wherein: the portion of the media asset has a start time and an end time different than a start time and end time of the media asset (see ¶ 62 for the portion of the media asset has a start time and an end time different than a start time and end time of the media asset (i.e. the selection indicators 506 may further include operation buttons (e.g., Start/End), in addition, the user interface 500 may include a slider bar 510 to indicate indexes of video frames and to show video progress during video playback, which the user may refer to select a start/end frame of the video segment as shown in fig. 5)); a progress bar indicates the start time and end time of the media asset (see ¶ 62 for a progress bar indicates the start time and end time of the media asset (i.e. the selection indicators 506 may further include operation buttons (e.g., Start/End), in addition, the user interface 500 may include a slider bar 510 to indicate indexes of video frames as shown in fig. 5)); a slider on the progress bar indicates a play position of the media asset (see ¶ 62 for a slider on the progress bar indicates a play position of the media asset (i.e. the user interface 500 may include a slider bar 510 to indicate indexes of video frames and to show video progress during video playback as shown in fig. 5)); and the method further comprises generating, for display, an indicator on a portion of the progress bar that indicates the start time and end time of the portion of the media asset (see ¶ 62 for generating, for display, an indicator on a portion of the progress bar that indicates the start time and end time of the portion of the media asset (i.e. the exemplary user interface 500 includes display 502 for viewing an original version of a video segment, display 504 for viewing the video segment with an applied editing effect and a plurality of selection indicators 506, for example, the selection indicators 506 may include display buttons to control the status of videos playing during video playback, the selection indicators 506 may further include operation buttons (e.g., Start/End), in addition, the user interface 500 may include a slider bar 510 to indicate indexes of video frames and to show video progress during video playback, which the user may refer to select a start/end frame of the video segment as shown in fig. 5))
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of Gupta, Sharifi, Singh and Zhang as a whole, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature (slider) into the system of Gupta as taught by Zhang.
One will be motivated to incorporate the above feature into the system of Gupta as taught by Zhang for the benefit of having a user interface 500 that includes display 502 for viewing an original version of a video segment, display 504 for viewing the video segment with an applied editing effect and a plurality of selection indicators 506, for example, the selection indicators 506 may include display buttons to control the status of videos playing during video playback, wherein the selection indicators 506 may further include operation buttons, wherein the user interface 500 may include a slider bar 510 to indicate indexes of video frames and to show video progress during video playback, which the user may refer to select a start/end frame of the video segment in order to have a user friendly interaction (see fig. 5 ¶ 62)
Re claim 46, the combination of Gupta, Sharifi, Singh and Zhang as discussed in claim 35 above discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 46.
Claims 40, 41, 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 2020/0128294 A1)(hereinafter Gupta) as applied to claims 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 42, 44, 45 and 48 above, and further in view of Sharifi et al. (US 2017/0177577 A1)(hereinafter Sharifi), and further in view of Singh et al. (US 2019/0208282 A1)(hereinafter Singh), and further in view of Hunt et al. (US 2009/0158326 A1)(hereinafter Hunt).
Re claim 40, the combination of Gupta, Sharifi and Singh as discussed in claim 31 above discloses all the claimed limitations but fails to explicitly teach wherein: a slider on a progress bar indicates a play position of the media asset; and receiving the scrub request comprises receiving an interaction with the progress bar without receiving an interaction with the slider. However, the reference of Hunt explicitly teaches wherein: a slider on a progress bar indicates a play position of the media asset (see ¶ 83 for a slider on a progress bar indicates a play position of the media asset (i.e. streaming media processor 140 displays screen display 402 in response to user input from input device 144 requesting a trick play function, for example, assume that a user is viewing a movie using the processor 140 and a streaming video protocol and the presses a "fast forward" button on device 144 or selects and drags the slider of a media player application, which generates and sends a fast forward command to processor 140, in response to the fast forward command, processor 140 changes the display 142 to show screen display 402 as described in fig. 4 paragraph 84, furthermore, progress bar 422 may illustrate a relative amount of the audiovisual program 107A that has been played and may also include one or more markers, such as vertical bars, to indicate relative positions within program 107A of the still images that are shown in display 402, one or more of the still images of display 402 may be indicated in the progress bar, for example, the progress bar 422 may comprise a marker only for the still image in the second image position 406 as described in fig. 4 paragraph 93)); and comprises receiving an interaction with the progress bar without receiving an interaction with the slider (see ¶ 83 for receiving an interaction with the progress bar without receiving an interaction with the slider (i.e. streaming media processor 140 displays screen display 402 in response to user input from input device 144 requesting a trick play function, for example, assume that a user is viewing a movie using the processor 140 and a streaming video protocol and the presses a "fast forward" button on device 144 as described in fig. 4 paragraph 84, furthermore, a display of two still images in a first image position, one still image in a second image position, and two still images in a third image position, as displayed in a video display for use in trick play of streaming media, progress bar 422 comprises a half-circle icon that indicates a relative position of the large still image, of the second image position, within the audiovisual program as a whole, a first time value on one side of the progress bar may indicate the amount of the program that has been viewed and a second time value on another side of the progress bar may indicate the amount of the program that has yet to be viewed as described in fig. 9 paragraph 98))
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of Gupta, Sharifi, Singh and Hunt as a whole, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this feature (scrub) into the system of Gupta as taught by Hunt.
One will be motivated to incorporate the above feature into the system of Gupta as taught by Hunt for the benefit of having a media processor 140 that displays screen display 402 in response to the user selecting and dragging the slider of a media player application, which generates and sends a forward or rewind command to processor 140 depending on the direction the slider is moved, wherein in response to the forward or rewind command, the media player application replaces or overlays the display of the s