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 and amendments received August 29, 2025 have been fully considered. with regard to 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose “see applicant argument pages 8-10”. This language corresponds to claims 1-23, specifically to independent claims.
As such, these have been considered but they are not persuasive as addressed below. See the rejection how the art on record reads on the claimed invention as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set as outlined below. Furthermore, in response to applicant argument of the claimed invention “determining one or more instructions for modifying output of the audio content at the time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises the keyword”, the examiner stands with the rejection since Gupta teaches time coded keyword generator 102 may utilize the audio information of a particular video content 101 and output time coded keyword information 104 specific to that particular video content….and…The output content keyword data 104 may be stored in a database configured to store time coded keyword data along with other data regarding the processed video content, such as speech to text, transcript information, metadata information, and the like.
As such, the examiner stands with the rejection, since the process of keyword generating using audio information with time coded keyword defines the process of determine generating time coded keyword as well as modifying the audio content within the video content considering the original video/audio does not include keyword. Also, the modified audio, based on keyword data output and stored within server or database. The process of generating keyword consider to include following specific instruction since the system of Gupta integrated with specific instruction to process data.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-10 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,046,262 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because see table as outlined below.
Instant App. 18/745,479
Patent No. 12,046,262 B2
1. A method comprising: receiving audio content; determining a time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises a keyword; determining one or more instructions for modifying output of the audio content at the time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises the keyword; and causing sending of a manifest, associated with the audio content, comprising the one or more instructions for modifying output of the content at the time point.
1. A method comprising: receiving content comprising an audio portion; determining, by a computing device, a time point of the audio portion at which the audio portion comprises a keyword; determining one or more instructions for modifying output of the content at the time point of the audio portion at which the audio portion comprises the keyword; and causing sending of a manifest, for the content, comprising: indications of a plurality of locations of video segments of the content, indications of a plurality of locations of audio segments associated with the video segments, and the one or more instructions for modifying output of the content at the time point.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions for modifying output of the audio content at the time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises the keyword comprises one or more of: an instructions for causing output of alternate audio at the time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises the keyword; an instructions for replacing the audio content comprising the keyword with alternate audio; an instructions for muting the audio content at the time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises the keyword; an instructions for causing a change in a volume of the audio content output at the time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises the keyword; or an instructions for causing output of an alert at the time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises the keyword.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the alternate audio comprises at least one of a silence, a tone, or a dub.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein an instruction of the one or more instructions comprises a volume instruction comprising an associated starting timestamp, an associated ending timestamp, and an associated value indicating a volume adjustment to be made during output between the times indicated by the starting and ending timestamps.
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the associated value of the volume instruction indicates that volume is to be muted.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the one or more instructions is based on one or more user preferences.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the one or more instructions is based on one or more user preferences.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the one or more user preferences comprise one or more of an indication of a content restriction or an indication of the keyword.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the one or more user preferences comprise content restrictions.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising generating, based at least on the determining the one or more instructions for modifying output of the content, alternate audio for output at the time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises the keyword.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising generating, based at least on the determining the one or more instructions for modifying output of the content, alternate audio for output at a time indicated by the one or more instructions.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the alternate audio comprises at least one of a silence, a tone, or a dub.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the alternate audio comprises at least one of a silence, a tone, or a dub.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises the keyword comprises at least one of: converting the audio content to text and identifying the keyword from the text; or determining a closed captioning track associated with the audio content and identifying the keyword from the closed captioning track.
8. The method of claim 6, wherein the determining the one or more instructions comprises extracting a closed captioning track from the content.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the one or more instructions comprises: extracting the audio portion of the content; and executing a speech-to-text process on the audio portion of the content.
Claims 8-14 list all similar elements of claims 1-7, but in device form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-7 applies equally as well to claims 8-14.
Claims 15-20 list all similar elements of claims 1-5 and 7, but in non-transitory computer-readable medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-5 and 7 applies equally as well to claims 15-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cary et al. US 2013/0064525 further in view of Gupta et al. US 2018/0007448.
In regarding to claim 1 Cary teaches:
1. A method comprising: receiving audio content;
[0020] Block 36 relates to determining whether the first user has requested a modification action. The modification action may correspond with any action desired by the first user to be included during subsequent, modified playback of the television program so as to modify the original content form. For exemplary and non-limiting purposes, the method is described with respect to the first user selecting the modification actions according to a plurality of parental control modification actions. The parental control modification actions may include actions associated with skipping portions of the television program, adding a bleep or other audio deafening feature, blurring or blocking certain portions of the television program, and deleting portions of the television program. The user may add additional metadata at this time as well, for example, information regarding "why" the edit was made. In the case of parental controls, it might be for violence, sex, language, etc. This information forms the (1) time offset, (2) edit-action, and (optionally) (3) metadata "tuple". In replay or use by a second user, the second user can then choose from a menu of metadata which tuples are used to modify the content. For example, a second user may be OK with violence and language, but not sex, for their children. The present invention, however, is not necessary limited to facilitating parental control type modification actions and fully contemplates facilitating virtually any type of modification action.
0013
However, Cary fails to explicit teach but Gupta teaches:
determining a time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises a keyword;
[0011] An embodiment of a system of the present disclosure includes a memory configured to store information; a communication unit configured to transmit and receive information; and one or more processors configured to: obtain first audio information of first video content; identify a first primary plurality of time codes corresponding to one or more occurrences of a first keyword relative to each other within the first audio information; obtain second audio information of second video content; identify a first secondary plurality of time codes corresponding to one or more occurrences of the first keyword relative to each other within the second audio information; determine an amount of differences between the first primary plurality of time codes and the first secondary plurality of time codes; generate information indicating whether the first video content and the second video content are related based on the determined amount of differences and transmit the generated information via the communication unit.
determining one or more instructions for modifying output of the audio content at the time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises the keyword;
[0027] The time coded keyword generator 102 may utilize the audio information of a particular video content 101 and output time coded keyword information 104 specific to that particular video content. For example, the time coded keyword generator 102 may output an identifier of the particular video file, along with information such as the identified keyword, each time code of each occurrence of the keyword, a start time, an end time, a confidence interval related to the identification of the keyword occurrence, and the like. The output content keyword data 104 may be stored in a database configured to store time coded keyword data along with other data regarding the processed video content, such as speech to text, transcript information, metadata information, and the like.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gupta with the system of Cary in order to determining a time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises a keyword; as such, determine an amount of differences between the first primary time codes and first secondary time codes, and generate information indicating whether the first video content and the second video content are related based on the determined amount of differences
..—see abstract.
Further, Cary teaches:
and causing sending of a manifest, associated with the audio content, comprising the one or more instructions for modifying output of the content at the time point.
0020, 0022, 0031
In regarding to claim 2 Cary and Gupta teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, furthermore, Cary teaches: wherein the one or more instructions for modifying output of the audio content at the time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises the keyword comprises one or more of: an instruction for causing output of alternate audio at the time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises the keyword;
0020, 0022, 0031-0032
replacing the audio content comprising the keyword with alternate audio;
0020, 0022, 0031-0032
an instruction for muting the audio content at the time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises the keyword;
0020, 0022, 0031-0032
an instruction for causing a change in a volume of the audio content output at the time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises the keyword; or causing output of an alert at the time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises the keyword.
0020, 0022, 0031-0032
In regarding to claim 3 Cary and Gupta teaches:
3. The method of claim 1, furthermore, Cary teaches: wherein the determining the one or more instructions is based on one or more user preferences.
0020, 0022, 0031-0032
In regarding to claim 4 Cary and Gupta teaches:
4. The method of claim 3, furthermore, Cary teaches: wherein the one or more user preferences comprise one or more of an indication of a content restriction or an indication of the keyword.
0020, 0022, 0031-0032
In regarding to claim 5 Cary and Gupta teaches:
5. The method of claim 1, furthermore, Cary teaches: further comprising generating, based at least on the determining the one or more instructions for modifying output of the content, alternate audio for output at the time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises the keyword.
0020, 0022, 0031-0032
In regarding to claim 6 Cary and Gupta teaches:
6. The method of claim 5, furthermore, Cary teaches: wherein the alternate audio comprises at least one of a silence, a tone, or a dub.
0020, 0022, 0031-0032
In regarding to claim 7 Cary and Gupta teaches:
7. The method of claim 1, furthermore, Cary teaches: wherein the determining the time point of the audio content at which the audio content comprises the keyword comprises at least one of: converting the audio content to text and identifying the keyword from the text;
0020, 0022, 0031-0032
or determining a closed captioning track associated with the audio content and identifying the keyword from the closed captioning track.
0020, 0022, 0031-0032
Claims 8-14 list all similar elements of claims 1-7, but in device form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-7 applies equally as well to claims 8-14.
Claims 15-20 list all similar elements of claims 1-5 and 7, but in non-transitory computer-readable medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-5 and 7 applies equally as well to claims 15-20.
In regarding to claim 21 Cary and Gupta teaches:
21. (New) The method of claim 1, furthermore, Cary teaches: wherein the one or more instructions for modifying output of the audio content comprise an indication of alternate audio to be output at the time point.
0020, 0022, 0031-0032
Claims 22-23 list all similar elements of claim 21, but in device and non-transitory computer-readable medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 21 applies equally as well to claims 22-23.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Oron US 2011/0161348
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 DANIEL T TEKLE whose telephone number is (571)270-1117. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30 ET.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/DANIEL T TEKLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights