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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to correspondence 04/13/26 regarding application 18/772,299, in which claims 1 and 14 were amended and claims 6 and 19 were cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7-18, and 20-26 are pending in the application and have been considered.
Response to Arguments
The examiner agrees with Applicant on pages 9-12 that the amendments to independent claims 1 and 14 do not introduce new matter. In particular, these claims have been amended to recite the features previously found in now cancelled dependent claims 6 and 19.
On pages 13-14, Applicant quotes certain paragraphs of Navin at length, and argues “…Navin's patent only discloses the feature of "the user device 304 extracts an image from the multimedia content via the ACR service, and transmits the image to the setting recommendation service 310; the setting recommendation service 310 analyzes the image with the content profile database 326 and transmits the corresponding device setting back to the user device 304 to implement adjustments to settings of the user device 304", but fails to disclose any feature of "the user device 304 extracts an image from the multimedia content and transmits query information according to the image to the setting recommendation service 310; the setting recommendation service 310 returns the keyword data to the user device 304, and the user device 304 analyzes the keyword data with the index table to determine whether to perform a mode switching operation for adjusting a playback parameter setting of the multimedia content".
In response, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “transmits query information according to the image to the setting recommendation service 310”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Navin discloses the multimedia playback apparatus extracting at least one frame image from the multimedia content and generating at least one query information to query a network artificial intelligence model (extracting certain frames from the media stream, which are sent to a remote server for content matching via machine learning techniques, [0018], and artificial intelligence techniques, [0029], over network 206, Fig 2, [0032], this is considered a request for the remote server to identify the content of the frame, i.e. a query), the network artificial intelligence model transmitting a first keyword data according to the query information (ACR service receives content fingerprint and assigns tags to categorize the content, e.g. “drama”, “western”, “sports”, “video game”, etc., which are transmitted to setting recommendation service, Fig 3, [0036]); the multimedia playback apparatus analyzing the first keyword data and the index table to determine whether to perform a mode switching operation for adjusting a playback parameter setting of the multimedia content (user device and setting recommendation service determine whether to adjust the visual and audio settings for playback based on the settings associated with the tags, [0036-0037], [0045-0046]).
Navin does not specifically mention transmitting a first keyword data back to the multimedia playback apparatus.
Lewis, II discloses transmitting a first keyword data back to the multimedia playback apparatus (video tagging server 118 identifies audiovisual components by sound or image analysis to assign tags such as the name of an actor or character, [0081], which are transmitted back to the playback device for presentation as an overlay during video playback, [0086], and used for playback controls, [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Navin by transmitting a first keyword data back to the multimedia playback apparatus in order to customize playback to better align with user interests, as suggested by Lewis, II ([0051]). Doing so would have led to predictable results of assisting the user in avoiding content they find annoying, as suggested by Lewis, II ([0051]).
On pages 14-15 regarding Lewis, Applicant argues also argues that Lewis individually fails to disclose any feature of "the receiving user device 146 extracts an image from the video content 304 and transmits query information according to the image to the video tagging server 118; the video tagging server 118 returns the keyword data to the receiving user device 146, and the receiving user device 146 analyzes the keyword data with the index table to determine whether to perform a mode switching operation for adjusting a playback parameter setting of the video content 304".
Again, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Moreover, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “transmits query information according to the image to the video tagging server 118”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Navin discloses the multimedia playback apparatus extracting at least one frame image from the multimedia content and generating at least one query information to query a network artificial intelligence model (extracting certain frames from the media stream, which are sent to a remote server for content matching via machine learning techniques, [0018], and artificial intelligence techniques, [0029], over network 206, Fig 2, [0032], this is considered a request for the remote server to identify the content of the frame, i.e. a query), the network artificial intelligence model transmitting a first keyword data according to the query information (ACR service receives content fingerprint and assigns tags to categorize the content, e.g. “drama”, “western”, “sports”, “video game”, etc., which are transmitted to setting recommendation service, Fig 3, [0036]); the multimedia playback apparatus analyzing the first keyword data and the index table to determine whether to perform a mode switching operation for adjusting a playback parameter setting of the multimedia content (user device and setting recommendation service determine whether to adjust the visual and audio settings for playback based on the settings associated with the tags, [0036-0037], [0045-0046]).
Navin does not specifically mention transmitting a first keyword data back to the multimedia playback apparatus.
Lewis, II discloses transmitting a first keyword data back to the multimedia playback apparatus (video tagging server 118 identifies audiovisual components by sound or image analysis to assign tags such as the name of an actor or character, [0081], which are transmitted back to the playback device for presentation as an overlay during video playback, [0086], and used for playback controls, [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Navin by transmitting a first keyword data back to the multimedia playback apparatus in order to customize playback to better align with user interests, as suggested by Lewis, II ([0051]). Doing so would have led to predictable results of assisting the user in avoiding content they find annoying, as suggested by Lewis, II ([0051]).
Further still regarding the above two arguments, the examiner notes that with respect to Navin and Lewis, II, Applicant admits on pages 13-14 that Navin discloses the feature of "the user device 304 extracts an image from the multimedia content via the ACR service, and transmits the image to the setting recommendation service 310; the setting recommendation service 310 analyzes the image with the content profile database 326 and transmits the corresponding device setting back to the user device 304 to implement adjustments to settings of the user device 304", and Applicant further admits on page 15 that Lewis discloses "the video tagging server 118 analyzes the video content 304 and transmits the corresponding video tag 308 back to the receiving user device 146 for showing the video tag 308 in the video content 304 10 displayed by the receiving user device 146". Applicant’s admissions appear to support rather than refute the conclusion of obviousness for these claim features based on Navin in view of Lewis, II in the Office Action 01/14/26 pages 3-4.
On page 15, Applicant further argues that none of the cited prior art can generate the inventive effect of automatically switching multimedia playback to a mode suitable for the user’s current viewing needs without any manual operation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, para [0052] of Navin explicitly describes automatically (instead of requiring manual operation by the user) changing the color settings on the user device based on whether the user is watching a movie or live sports.
Finally, on pages 16-17, Applicant argues that Sullivan does not disclose "the index table for comparison with the keyword data corresponding to the extracted image of the multimedia content is sent to the network artificial intelligence model for evolution of the network artificial intelligence model". In response, again, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Navin discloses the multimedia playback apparatus sending to the network artificial intelligence model for evolution of the network artificial intelligence model (user device prompts user for feedback on the settings, which is sent to machine learning model for tuning, [0025], [0055]);
the network artificial intelligence model transmitting a first keyword data according to the query information (ACR service receives content fingerprint and assigns tags to categorize the content, e.g. “drama”, “western”, “sports”, “video game”, etc., which are transmitted to setting recommendation service, Fig 3, [0036]); and
the multimedia playback apparatus analyzing the first keyword data and the index table to determine whether to perform a mode switching operation for adjusting a playback parameter setting of the multimedia content (user device and setting recommendation service determine whether to adjust the visual and audio settings for playback based on the settings associated with the tags, [0036-0037], [0045-0046]).
Navin and Lewis, II do not specifically mention sending the index table.
Sullivan discloses sending the index table (transmit the index table, (Col 14 lines 4-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Navin and Lewis, II by sending the index table in order to increase efficiency, as suggested by Sullivan (Col 14 lines 24-30), predictably reducing latency, as suggested by Sullivan (Col 14 lines 19-34). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of multimedia.
The arguments on page 17 regarding independent claim 14 as well as dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, 15-18, and 20-26 are similar to those addressed above regarding claim 1, and are not persuasive for similar reasons.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-4, 7-9, 14-17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navin et al. (US 20210377607) in view of Lewis, II (US 20140064706), in further view of Sullivan et al. (US 9892188).
Consider claim 1, Navin discloses a playback mode switching method (switching device settings during playback of a movie or ports, [0046]) comprising:
a multimedia playback apparatus establishing an index table corresponding to a plurality of preset keyword data and a plurality of playback modes (environment for movies and television playback stores profiles corresponding to drama, sports, video games, i.e. keyword data, which include device settings for playback of media content tagged with the profile, i.e. playback modes, [0045-0046], considered an “index table” in that the first row stores “drama” and drama playback settings, the second row stores sports and sports playback settings, etc., Fig 4 elements 406, 408, [0046]);
the multimedia playback apparatus playing multimedia content (playback of movies, sports, video games, etc., [0046]);
the multimedia playback apparatus extracting at least one frame image from the multimedia content and generating at least one query information to query a network artificial intelligence model (extracting certain frames from the media stream, which are sent to a remote server for content matching via machine learning techniques, [0018], and artificial intelligence techniques, [0029], over network 206, Fig 2, [0032], this is considered a request for the remote server to identify the content of the frame, i.e. a query);
the multimedia playback apparatus sending to the network artificial intelligence model for evolution of the network artificial intelligence model (user device prompts user for feedback on the settings, which is sent to machine learning model for tuning, [0025], [0055]);
the network artificial intelligence model transmitting a first keyword data according to the query information (ACR service receives content fingerprint and assigns tags to categorize the content, e.g. “drama”, “western”, “sports”, “video game”, etc., which are transmitted to setting recommendation service, Fig 3, [0036]); and
the multimedia playback apparatus analyzing the first keyword data and the index table to determine whether to perform a mode switching operation for adjusting a playback parameter setting of the multimedia content (user device and setting recommendation service determine whether to adjust the visual and audio settings for playback based on the settings associated with the tags, [0036-0037], [0045-0046]).
Navin does not specifically mention transmitting a first keyword data back to the multimedia playback apparatus.
Lewis, II discloses transmitting a first keyword data back to the multimedia playback apparatus (video tagging server 118 identifies audiovisual components by sound or image analysis to assign tags such as the name of an actor or character, [0081], which are transmitted back to the playback device for presentation as an overlay during video playback, [0086], and used for playback controls, [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Navin by transmitting a first keyword data back to the multimedia playback apparatus in order to customize playback to better align with user interests, as suggested by Lewis, II ([0051]). Doing so would have led to predictable results of assisting the user in avoiding content they find annoying, as suggested by Lewis, II ([0051]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of multimedia.
Navin and Lewis, II do not specifically mention sending the index table.
Sullivan discloses sending the index table (transmit the index table, (Col 14 lines 4-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Navin and Lewis, II by sending the index table in order to increase efficiency, as suggested by Sullivan (Col 14 lines 24-30), predictably reducing latency, as suggested by Sullivan (Col 14 lines 19-34). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of multimedia.
Consider claim 14, Navin discloses a multimedia playback apparatus connected to a network artificial intelligence model (user device such as a television for playing movies connected to machine learning module over network 306, Fig 3, [0018]-[0019], [0034]-[0035]), the multimedia playback apparatus comprising:
a multimedia playback device for playing a multimedia content (user device for playback of content such as a video on a television, [0018]-[0019]);
a multimedia processing device electrically connected to the multimedia playback device, for establishing in advance an index table corresponding to a plurality of preset keyword data and a plurality of playback modes (content profile service on device for movies and television playback stores profiles corresponding to drama, sports, video games, i.e. keyword data, which include device settings for playback of media content tagged with the profile, i.e. playback modes, [0045-0046], considered an “index table” in that the first row stores “drama” and drama playback settings, the second row stores sports and sports playback settings, etc., Fig 4 elements 406, 408, [0046]),
extracting at least one frame image from the multimedia content (extracting certain frames from the media stream, which are sent to a remote server for content matching via machine learning techniques, [0018]), and
generating at least one query information according to the at least one frame image (extracting certain frames from the media stream, which are sent to a remote server for content matching via machine learning techniques, [0018], and artificial intelligence techniques, [0029], over network 206, Fig 2, [0032], this is considered a request for the remote server to identify the content of the frame, i.e. a query); and
a network transmission device electrically connected to the multimedia processing device, for a first keyword data by the network artificial intelligence model according to the at least one query information back to the multimedia processing device (ACR service receives content fingerprint and assigns tags to categorize the content, e.g. “drama”, “western”, “sports”, “video game”, etc., which are transmitted to setting recommendation service, Fig 3, [0036]), the multimedia playback apparatus sending to the network artificial intelligence model for evolution of the network artificial intelligence model (user device prompts user for feedback on the settings, which is sent to machine learning model for tuning, [0025], [0055]);
the multimedia processing device analyzing the first keyword data and the index table to determine whether to control the multimedia playback device to perform a mode switching operation for adjusting a playback parameter setting of the multimedia content (user device and setting recommendation service determine whether to adjust the visual and audio settings for playback based on the settings associated with the tags, [0036-0037], [0045-0046]).
Navin does not specifically mention transmitting a first keyword data returned.
Lewis, II discloses transmitting a transmitting a first keyword data returned (video tagging server 118 identifies audiovisual components by sound or image analysis to assign tags such as the name of an actor or character, [0081], which are transmitted back to the playback device for presentation as an overlay during video playback, [0086], and used for playback controls, [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Navin by transmitting a first keyword data returned for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Navin and Lewis, II do not specifically mention sending the index table.
Sullivan discloses sending the index table (transmit the index table, (Col 14 lines 4-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Navin and Lewis, II by sending the index table for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 2, Navin discloses: the multimedia playback apparatus generating a voice keyword data according to a voice input data (auditory samples from various actors, i.e. voice data, is used as the fingerprint to identify tags such as sports, movie, video game, [0029], [0030], [0036]); and the multimedia playback apparatus analyzing the voice keyword data and the index table to determine whether to perform the mode switching operation (user device and setting recommendation service determine whether to adjust the visual and audio settings for playback based on the settings associated with the tags, [0036-0037], [0045-0046]).
Consider claim 3, Navin discloses when the multimedia playback apparatus determines that the voice input data matches one of the preset keyword data, the multimedia playback apparatus performs the mode switching operation according to the index table (ACR service receives content fingerprint from voice data, [0029-0030], and assigns tags to categorize the content, e.g. “drama”, “western”, “sports”, “video game”, etc., which are transmitted to setting recommendation service, Fig 3, [0036], which determines whether to adjust the visual and audio settings for playback based on the settings associated with the tags, [0036-0037], [0045-0046]).
Consider claim 4, Navin discloses when the multimedia playback apparatus determines that the voice input data does not match any preset keyword data, the multimedia playback apparatus queries the network artificial intelligence model according to the at least one query information (ACR service uses media content database auditory samples from various actors to narrow down a range of potential matching content, i.e. the voice data does not match any of the content items ruled out, [0029], and auditory samples are sent to a remote server for content matching via machine learning techniques, [0018], and artificial intelligence techniques, [0029], over network 206, Fig 2, [0032]).
Consider claim 7, Navin discloses the multimedia playback apparatus determines that the first keyword data matches one of the preset keyword data, the multimedia playback apparatus performs the mode switching operation according to the index table (user device and setting recommendation service determines to adjust the visual and audio settings for playback based on the settings associated with the tags, [0036-0037], [0045-0046]).
Consider claim 8, Navin discloses the at least one query information queries the network artificial intelligence model in a form of a closed-ended choice question about an image type (the output of the neural network is a classification into one or more discrete classes, e.g. “sports”, “movie”, or “video game”; this is effectively considered a form of a close ended question for the classifier, [0030]).
Consider claim 9, Navin discloses when the multimedia playback apparatus determines that the first keyword data does not match any preset keyword data, the multimedia playback apparatus does not perform the mode switching operation, or alternatively, the multimedia playback apparatus queries the network artificial intelligence model about an image type via a question according to the at least one frame image, and the multimedia playback apparatus establishes a correspondence relationship in the index table between a second keyword data transmitted from the network artificial intelligence model and one of the plurality of playback modes (the output of the neural network is a classification into one or more discrete classes, e.g. “sports”, “movie”, or “video game”; this is effectively considered a form of a close ended “question” for the classifier, [0030], and user device and setting recommendation service determine whether to adjust the visual and audio settings for playback based on the settings associated with the tags, [0036-0037], [0045-0046]).
Consider claim 15, Navin discloses the multimedia playback apparatus further comprises: a voice processing device electrically connected to the multimedia processing device, for generating a voice input data (device uses auditory samples from various actors, i.e. voice data, is used as the fingerprint to identify tags such as sports, movie, video game, [0029], [0030], [0036]); wherein the multimedia processing device generates a voice keyword data according to the voice input data, and the multimedia processing device analyzes the voice keyword data and the index table to determine whether to control the multimedia playback device to perform the mode switching operation (user device and setting recommendation service determine whether to adjust the visual and audio settings for playback based on the settings associated with the tags, [0036-0037], [0045-0046]).
Consider claim 16, Navin discloses when the multimedia processing device determines that the voice input data matches one of the preset keyword data, the multimedia processing device controls the multimedia playback device to perform the mode switching operation according to the index table (ACR service receives content fingerprint from voice data, [0029-0030], and assigns tags to categorize the content, e.g. “drama”, “western”, “sports”, “video game”, etc., which are transmitted to setting recommendation service, Fig 3, [0036], which determines whether to adjust the visual and audio settings for playback based on the settings associated with the tags, [0036-0037], [0045-0046]).
Consider claim 17, Navin discloses when the multimedia playback apparatus determines that the voice input data does not match any preset keyword data, the multimedia playback apparatus queries the network artificial intelligence model according to the at least one query information (ACR service uses media content database auditory samples from various actors to narrow down a range of potential matching content, i.e. the voice data does not match any of the content items ruled out, [0029], and auditory samples are sent to a remote server for content matching via machine learning techniques, [0018], and artificial intelligence techniques, [0029], over network 206, Fig 2, [0032]).
Consider claim 20, Navin discloses the multimedia playback apparatus determines that the first keyword data matches one of the preset keyword data, the multimedia playback apparatus performs the mode switching operation according to the index table (user device and setting recommendation service determines to adjust the visual and audio settings for playback based on the settings associated with the tags, [0036-0037], [0045-0046]).
Consider claim 21, Navin discloses the at least one query information queries the network artificial intelligence model in a form of a closed-ended choice question about an image type (the output of the neural network is a classification into one or more discrete classes, e.g. “sports”, “movie”, or “video game”; this is effectively considered a form of a close ended question for the classifier, [0030]).
Consider claim 22, Navin discloses when the multimedia playback apparatus determines that the first keyword data does not match any preset keyword data, the multimedia playback apparatus does not perform the mode switching operation, or alternatively, the multimedia playback apparatus queries the network artificial intelligence model about an image type via a question according to the at least one frame image, and the multimedia playback apparatus establishes a correspondence relationship in the index table between a second keyword data transmitted from the network artificial intelligence model and one of the plurality of playback modes (the output of the neural network is a classification into one or more discrete classes, e.g. “sports”, “movie”, or “video game”; this is effectively considered a form of a close ended “question” for the classifier, [0030], and user device and setting recommendation service determine whether to adjust the visual and audio settings for playback based on the settings associated with the tags, [0036-0037], [0045-0046]).
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navin et al. (US 20210377607) in view of Lewis, II (US 20140064706), in further view of Sullivan et al. (US 9892188), in further view of Raichelgauz et al. (US 20130166276).
Consider claim 5, Navin discloses a multimedia playback apparatus and network artificial intelligence model (user device 202 and machine learning module 216, Fig 2, [0029-0030]).
Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan do not specifically mention utilizing a translation service to convert a language corresponding to the at least one query information to a default language of the network artificial intelligence model.
Raichelgauz discloses utilizing a translation service to convert a language corresponding to the at least one query information to a default language (multimedia element is uploaded to input to the querying server with a translation request designating at least the target natural language of the translated text, [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan such that the multimedia playback apparatus of Navin utilizes a translation service to convert a language corresponding to the at least one query information to a default language, as in Raichelgauz, of the network artificial intelligence model of Navin in order to assist viewers who cannot read English, as suggested by Raichelgauz ([0007]), predictably increasing the amount of media available for the user to view, as suggested by Raichelgauz ([0007]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of multimedia.
Consider claim 18, Navin discloses a multimedia playback apparatus and network artificial intelligence model (user device 202 and machine learning module 216, Fig 2, [0029-0030]).
Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan do not specifically mention utilizing a translation service to convert a language corresponding to the at least one query information to a default language of the network artificial intelligence model.
Raichelgauz discloses utilizing a translation service to convert a language corresponding to the at least one query information to a default language (multimedia element is uploaded to input to the querying server with a translation request designating at least the target natural language of the translated text, [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan such that the multimedia playback apparatus of Navin utilizes a translation service to convert a language corresponding to the at least one query information to a default language, as in Raichelgauz, of the network artificial intelligence model of Navin for reasons similar to those for claim 5.
Claims 10-12 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navin et al. (US 20210377607) in view of Lewis, II (US 20140064706), in further view of Sullivan et al. (US 9892188)., in further view of Hardee et al. (US 20200160091).
Consider claim 10, Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan do not, but Hardee discloses the step of the multimedia playback apparatus playing the multimedia content comprises: the multimedia playback apparatus sending the multimedia content to the network artificial intelligence model to determine whether the multimedia content is copyrighted or whether a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) of the multimedia content is unsafe, to decide whether to play the multimedia content (object recognition component 110 determines whether the video is copyrighted, [0035], [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan such that the step of the multimedia playback apparatus playing the multimedia content comprises: the multimedia playback apparatus sending the multimedia content to the network artificial intelligence model to determine whether the multimedia content is copyrighted or whether a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) of the multimedia content is unsafe, to decide whether to play the multimedia content in order to effectively and efficiently prevent unauthorized usage of media on the internet, as suggested by Hardee ([0021]), predictably protecting content owners, as suggested by Hardee ([0021]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of multimedia.
Consider claim 11, Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan do not, but Hardee discloses the multimedia playback apparatus determines a legality of the multimedia content according to a content description information of the multimedia content (object recognition component 110 determines whether the video is being viewed in an unauthorized manner, [0033], [0035], [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan such that the multimedia playback apparatus determines a legality of the multimedia content according to a content description information of the multimedia content for reasons similar to those for claim 10.
Consider claim 12, Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan do not, but Hardee discloses the multimedia playback apparatus determines whether the multimedia content contains a restricted content via the network artificial intelligence model (object recognition component 110 determines whether the video is restricted for usage, [0023], [0033], [0035], [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan such that the multimedia playback apparatus determines whether the multimedia content contains a restricted content via the network artificial intelligence model for reasons similar to those for claim 10.
Consider claim 23, Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan do not, but Hardee discloses the multimedia playback apparatus determines whether the multimedia content is copyrighted or whether a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) of the multimedia content is unsafe via the network artificial intelligence model, to decide whether to play the multimedia content (object recognition component 110 determines whether the video is copyrighted, [0035], [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan such that the multimedia playback apparatus determines whether the multimedia content is copyrighted or whether a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) of the multimedia content is unsafe via the network artificial intelligence model, to decide whether to play the multimedia content for reasons similar to those for claim 10.
Consider claim 24, Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan do not, but Hardee discloses the multimedia playback apparatus determines a legality of the multimedia content according to a content description information of the multimedia content (object recognition component 110 determines whether the video is being viewed in an unauthorized manner, [0033], [0035], [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan such that the multimedia playback apparatus determines a legality of the multimedia content according to a content description information of the multimedia content for reasons similar to those for claim 10.
Consider claim 25, Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan do not, but Hardee discloses the multimedia playback apparatus determines whether the multimedia content contains a restricted content via the network artificial intelligence model (object recognition component 110 determines whether the video is restricted for usage, [0023], [0033], [0035], [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan such that the multimedia playback apparatus determines whether the multimedia content contains a restricted content via the network artificial intelligence model for reasons similar to those for claim 10.
Claims 13 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navin et al. (US 20210377607) in view of Lewis, II (US 20140064706), in further view of Sullivan et al. (US 9892188), in further view of Li et al. (US 20060212897).
Consider claim 13, Navin discloses analyzing the specific keyword with the index table to determine whether to perform the mode switching operation (user device and setting recommendation service determine whether to adjust the visual and audio settings for playback based on the settings associated with the tags, [0036-0037], [0045-0046]).
Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan do not specifically mention the first keyword data comprises a plurality of keywords, and the multimedia playback apparatus assigns a weight value to each keyword; when the multimedia playback apparatus determines that a summed weight value for a specific keyword exceeds a threshold, the multimedia playback apparatus analyzes the specific keyword.
Li discloses the first keyword data comprises a plurality of keywords, and the multimedia playback apparatus assigns a weight value to each keyword (advertising keywords are assigned weights, [0037], [0060]); when the multimedia playback apparatus determines that a summed weight value for a specific keyword exceeds a threshold, the multimedia playback apparatus analyzes the specific keyword (the reweighted keyword vectors are compared to a threshold for ad selection based on the keyword, [0067-0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan such that the first keyword data comprises a plurality of keywords, and the multimedia playback apparatus assigns a weight value to each keyword; when the multimedia playback apparatus determines that a summed weight value for a specific keyword exceeds a threshold, the multimedia playback apparatus analyzes the specific keyword in order to increase advertising efficiency, as suggested by Li ([0004]), predictably resulting in increased profits, as suggested by Li ([0004]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of multimedia.
Consider claim 26, Navin discloses analyzing the specific keyword with the index table to determine whether to perform the mode switching operation (user device and setting recommendation service determine whether to adjust the visual and audio settings for playback based on the settings associated with the tags, [0036-0037], [0045-0046]).
Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan do not specifically mention the first keyword data comprises a plurality of keywords, and the multimedia playback apparatus assigns a weight value to each keyword; when the multimedia playback apparatus determines that a summed weight value for a specific keyword exceeds a threshold, the multimedia playback apparatus analyzes the specific keyword.
Li discloses the first keyword data comprises a plurality of keywords, and the multimedia playback apparatus assigns a weight value to each keyword (advertising keywords are assigned weights, [0037], [0060]); when the multimedia playback apparatus determines that a summed weight value for a specific keyword exceeds a threshold, the multimedia playback apparatus analyzes the specific keyword (the reweighted keyword vectors are compared to a threshold for ad selection based on the keyword, [0067-0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Navin, Lewis, II, and Sullivan such that the first keyword data comprises a plurality of keywords, and the multimedia playback apparatus assigns a weight value to each keyword; when the multimedia playback apparatus determines that a summed weight value for a specific keyword exceeds a threshold, the multimedia playback apparatus analyzes the specific keyword for reasons similar to those for claim 13.
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 Jesse Pullias whose telephone number is 571/270-5135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The examiner’s fax number is 571/270-6135.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached on 571/272-7516.
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.
/Jesse S Pullias/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655 05/20/26
Prosecution Insights