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 . This action is made final.
Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 10-12 are independent claims.
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 1-3, 6, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhruv et al. (US 2015/0249869 A1), in view of Lee et al. (US 2010/0153883 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dhruv teaches a managing method comprising:
managing playback of multimedia content by a playback device equipped with a processor and with a content player comprising a plurality of playback functions (FIGS. 1A-B and [0021-0028]: playback device 1002 corresponds to a computing device of FIG. 1A that is employed to practice the concepts disclosed in Dhruv. Playback device 1002 is equipped with a processor and a content player; FIG. 5A and [0040]: for example, see how the content player of the playback device comprises a plurality of playback functions including at least two of control 516 and buttons 506, 508, 510, 512, and 514), by making available playback functions of the plurality of playback functions of the player vary over time during rendering of the ([0037-0039] and FIGS. 5A-B and [0040-0041]: available playback functions vary over time. For example, certain playback function(s) may be available at a first time but certain playback function(s) may be disabled at a second time).
Dhruv does not explicitly teach making available playback functions of the plurality of playback functions of the player vary over time during rendering of the same multimedia content.
Lee teaches making available (FIG. 2 and [0043-0044]; See [0028-0029] for more details regarding the express menu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the playback functions of Dhruv by incorporating the teachings of Lee so as to include making available playback functions of the plurality of playback functions of the player vary over time during rendering of the same multimedia content. Doing so would help ensure that important portions of Dhruv’s main content, such as a movie as similarly referenced in Lee ([0043]), do not get missed by the viewer. For example, by disabling the forward controls at a critical segment, the user cannot skip over the segment and thus is less likely to get confused from the content’s plot development and can better comprehend the content’s story.
Regarding claim 2, Dhruv in view of Lee further teaches the managing method according to Claim 1. Dhruv further teaches wherein each function of the plurality of playback functions is able to be rendered on a rendering device, and only an available function is rendered on the screen (FIGS. 5A-B and [0040-0041]: each function is able to be rendered on a rendering device/playback device 1002 and only an available function is rendered on the screen. For example, plurality of playback functions may include volume control 516 and fast forward button 514. As exemplified in FIG. 5B, only an available function/volume control 516 is rendered on the screen) (Applicant sets forth in [0036] of the Specification, with reference to FIG. 1, that the computer system SYS comprises a device STB, which may be a decoder connected to a rendering device TV, and states, “It will be noted here that the decoding playback device STB and the rendering device may form one and the same piece of equipment”. Thus, a rendering device and a playback device may be the same device).
Regarding claim 3, Dhruv in view of Lee teaches the managing method according to Claim 1. Dhruv further teaches wherein the plurality of playback functions are rendered independently of their respective availability, and selection of unavailable playback functions is inhibited (FIGS. 5A-B and [0040-0041]: functions may be rendered independently of their respective availability. For example, plurality of playback functions may include volume control 516 and play button 508. As exemplified in FIG. 5B, even though play button 508 is rendered with an unchanged appearance, it is disabled).
Regarding claim 6, Dhruv in view of Lee teaches the managing method according to Claim 1. Dhruv further teaches wherein a function of the plurality of playback functions becomes available following activation of the function ([0037-0039] and FIGS. 5A-B and [0040-0041]: a function may become available following activation of the function. For example, as stated in [0039], “The #ADVERTISEMENT-TRANSITION tag can indicate to the player to quickly fade to black, then fade into the new advertisement, reset the media player controls, or perform any other suitable action.” Thus, a function that was disabled can be reset, or made available, following activation in accordance with the tag; FIG. 4 and [0035-0036] in the context of [0037-0041]: As another example, note how a media file is played with advertising media chunks interspersed. During ad1, a function may be disabled. As supported in [0037], “a content provider may desire to perform some action during playback of the advertisements, such as disabling certain playback controls”. However, after ad1 and before ad2, the function is activated and made available again as the advertisement is not being played. As supported in [0040], all functions may be available, as illustrated in FIG. 5A, “during playback of a main media asset, i.e. in a "normal" state”).
Regarding claim 10, Dhruv teaches a managing entity (playback device 1002 of FIG. 1B and [0028]; FIG. 1A and [0021]: playback device 1002 corresponds to a computing device of FIG. 1A that is employed to practice the concepts disclosed in Dhruv) for managing playback of multimedia content by a playback device comprising a content player comprising a plurality of playback functions (FIGS. 1A-B and [0021-0028]: playback device 1002 is equipped with a processor and a content player; FIG. 5A and [0040]: for example, see how the content player of the playback device comprises a plurality of playback functions including at least two of control 516 and buttons 506, 508, 510, 512, and 514), wherein the entity comprises:
at least one processor (processor 120 of FIGS. 1A-B and [0022-0028]); and
at least one non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon which when executed by the at least one processor (storage device 160 of FIGS. 1A-B and [0022-0028]) configure the managing entity to make available playback functions of the player vary over time during playback of the ([0037-0039] and FIGS. 5A-B and [0040-0041]: available playback functions vary over time. For example, certain playback function(s) may be available at a first time but certain playback function(s) may be disabled at a second time).
Dhruv does not explicitly teach making available playback functions of the plurality of playback functions of the player vary over time during rendering of the same multimedia content.
Lee teaches making available (FIG. 2 and [0043-0044]; See [0028-0029] for more details regarding the express menu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the playback functions of Dhruv by incorporating the teachings of Lee so as to include making available playback functions of the plurality of playback functions of the player vary over time during rendering of the same multimedia content. Doing so would help ensure that important portions of Dhruv’s main content, such as a movie as similarly referenced in Lee ([0043]), do not get missed by the viewer. For example, by disabling the forward controls at a critical segment, the user cannot skip over the segment and thus is less likely to get confused from the content’s plot development and can better comprehend the content’s story.
Regarding claim 11, Dhruv in view of Lee teaches a decoder comprising the managing entity (Dhruv, playback device 1002 of FIG. 1B and [0028]; FIG. 1A and [0021]: playback device 1002 corresponds to a computing device of FIG. 1A that is employed to practice the concepts disclosed in Dhruv) as defined in Claim 10 (Applicant sets forth in [0036] of the Specification, with reference to FIG. 1, that the computer system SYS comprises a device STB, which may be a decoder connected to a rendering device TV, and states, “It will be noted here that the decoding playback device STB and the rendering device may form one and the same piece of equipment”. Thus, a decoder and the managing entity may be the same piece of equipment).
Regarding claim 12, Dhruv teaches a non-transitory computer readable data medium on which at least one series of program-code instructions is stored for executing a managing method when the instructions are executed by at least one processor (storage device 160 executed by processor 120 of FIGS. 1A-B and [0022-0028]), wherein the managing method comprises:
managing playback of multimedia content by a playback device equipped with a processor and with a content player comprising a plurality of playback functions (FIGS. 1A-B and [0021-0028]: playback device 1002 corresponds to a computing device of FIG. 1A that is employed to practice the concepts disclosed in Dhruv. Playback device 1002 is equipped with a processor and a content player; FIG. 5A and [0040]: for example, see how the content player of the playback device comprises a plurality of playback functions including at least two of control 516 and buttons 506, 508, 510, 512, and 514), by making available playback functions of the plurality of playback functions of the player vary over time during playback of the ([0037-0039] and FIGS. 5A-B and [0040-0041]: available playback functions vary over time. For example, certain playback function(s) may be available at a first time but certain playback function(s) may be disabled at a second time).
Dhruv does not explicitly teach making available playback functions of the plurality of playback functions of the player vary over time during rendering of the same multimedia content.
Lee teaches making available (FIG. 2 and [0043-0044]; See [0028-0029] for more details regarding the express menu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the playback functions of Dhruv by incorporating the teachings of Lee so as to include making available playback functions of the plurality of playback functions of the player vary over time during rendering of the same multimedia content. Doing so would help ensure that important portions of Dhruv’s main content, such as a movie as similarly referenced in Lee ([0043]), do not get missed by the viewer. For example, by disabling the forward controls at a critical segment, the user cannot skip over the segment and thus is less likely to get confused from the content’s plot development and can better comprehend the content’s story.
Claims 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhruv et al. (US 2015/0249869 A1), in view of Lee et al. (US 2010/0153883 A1), in view of Lenz et al. (US 2003/0112269 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Dhruv in view of Lee teaches the managing method according to Claim 1.
Dhruv in view of Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the availability of a function of the plurality of playback functions is dependent on a current amount of use of the processor as a resource.
Lenz teaches wherein the availability of a function of the plurality of playback functions is dependent on a current amount of use of the processor as a resource (FIG. 2 and [0034-0036]: processor is used as a resource given the coupling of resources 212 to computing environment 100; [0015-0017], Fig. 4 and [0048-0051], FIGS. 5A-D and [0054-0057]: the availability of a function is dependent on a current amount of use of the processor as a resource 212. Certain functions are not made available until resource 212 falls below a threshold trigger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dhruv in view of Lee by incorporating the teachings of Lenz so as to include wherein the availability of a function of the plurality of playback functions is dependent on a current amount of use of the processor as a resource. Doing so would help conserve processing resources so as to not inhibit more critical functions. For example, by disabling certain playback functions when resources are limited, the processor can allocate sufficient resources to handle more important activities, such as processing the actual playback of media content. Playback functions serve no utility if playback of media content cannot occur. Adaptive resource allocation helps preserve this utility in situations of limited resources.
Regarding claim 7, Dhruv in view of Lee teaches the managing method according to Claim 6.
Dhruv in view of Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the functions of the plurality of playback functions are activated or deactivated successively until a given amount of use of the processor as a resource is obtained.
Lenz teaches wherein the functions of the plurality of playback functions are activated or deactivated successively until a given amount of use of the processor as a resource is obtained (FIG. 2 and [0034-0036]: processor is used as a resource given the coupling of resources 212 to computing environment 100; [0015-0017], Fig. 4 and [0048-0051], FIGS. 5A-D and [0054-0057]: functions are deactivated continuously, or successively, until resource 212 falls below a threshold trigger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dhruv in view of Lee by incorporating the teachings of Lenz so as to include wherein the functions of the plurality of playback functions are activated or deactivated successively until a given amount of use of the processor as a resource is obtained. Doing so would help ensure a sufficient resource level is present for primary processes before activation of playback functions representative of secondary features. For example, by disabling certain playback functions until resources reach a certain threshold, the processor can allocate sufficient resources to handle more important activities, such as processing the actual playback of media content. Playback functions serve no utility if playback of media content cannot occur. Adaptive resource allocation helps preserve this utility in situations of limited resources.
Claims 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhruv et al. (US 2015/0249869 A1), in view of Lee et al. (US 2010/0153883 A1), in view of Lenz et al. (US 2003/0112269 A1), in view of Mingolla et al. (US 2021/0377630 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Dhruv in view of Lee in view of Lenz teaches the managing method according to Claim 7.
Dhruv in view of Lee in view of Lenz does not explicitly teach wherein the functions of the plurality of playback functions are classified according to their respective consumption of resources of the processor and wherein the successive activations or deactivations are carried out according to the classification.
Mingolla teaches wherein the functions of the plurality of playback functions are classified according to their respective consumption of resources of the processor and wherein the successive activations or deactivations are carried out according to the classification ([0043]; FIG. 7 and [0091]: “At block 720, the client SDK parses the extracted metadata for extracting a functionality associated with customization of the interaction of the media player 145. The functionality includes, disabling VCR-type of controls to fast-forward or skip the active substream content, disabling volume controls during content-breaks, enabling click-through functionality.” These functions consume resources of the processor in a VCR-type manner, and are classified accordingly) (for the successive activations or deactivations aspect, which is addressed in parent claim 7, see Lenz [0015-0017], Fig. 4 and [0048-0051], FIGS. 5A-D and [0054-0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dhruv in view of Lee and in view of Lenz by incorporating the teachings of Mingolla so as to include wherein the functions of the plurality of playback functions are classified according to their respective consumption of resources of the processor and wherein the successive activations or deactivations are carried out according to the classification. Doing so would allow deactivation of a certain class of functions for optimization of content playback. For example, a classification of functions may hinder or even negate the ability of the user to view important content, such as VCR-type controls to fast-forward or skip the content, as set forth in Mingolla. By deactivating functions according to classification, the system can more efficiently deactivate controls of a classification. This is in contrast to the more resource-demanding and time-consuming process of individually assessing each function for activation or deactivation.
Regarding claim 9, Dhruv in view of Lee in view of Lenz teaches the managing method according to Claim 7.
Dhruv in view of Lee in view of Lenz does not explicitly teach wherein the functions of the plurality of playback functions are classified by preference, and wherein the successive activations or deactivations are carried out according to the classification.
Mingolla teaches wherein the functions of the plurality of playback functions are classified by preference, and wherein the successive activations or deactivations are carried out according to the classification ([0043]; FIG. 7 and [0091]: “At block 720, the client SDK parses the extracted metadata for extracting a functionality associated with customization of the interaction of the media player 145. The functionality includes, disabling VCR-type of controls to fast-forward or skip the active substream content, disabling volume controls during content-breaks, enabling click-through functionality.” These functions are classified as to be disabled, the disabling a result of customization, or configured preferences, for interaction of the media player 145. The configured preferences come from extracting metadata from a third-party provider, as detailed in [0007]) (for the successive activations or deactivations aspect, which is addressed in parent claim 7, see Lenz [0015-0017], Fig. 4 and [0048-0051], FIGS. 5A-D and [0054-0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dhruv in view of Lee in view of Lenz by incorporating the teachings of Mingolla so as to include wherein the functions of the plurality of playback functions are classified by preference, and wherein the successive activations or deactivations are carried out according to the classification. Doing so would allow deactivation of a certain class of functions for optimization of content playback. For example, according to preferences, certain content should not be skipped. A classification of functions, such as VCR-type controls to fast-forward or skip the content, as set forth in Mingolla, may hinder or even negate the ability of the user to view such content. By deactivating functions according to classification by configured preferences, the system can more efficiently deactivate controls of a classification to ensure playback of critical content. This is in contrast to the more resource-demanding and time-consuming process of individually assessing each function for activation or deactivation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KENNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7AM to 5PM.
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, KIEU D VU can be reached on (571)272-4057. 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.
/KENNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights