DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended.
No claims are canceled.
No newly added claims.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the amendment filed on 4/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 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, 2, 7-9, and 14-16 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilobrov (US 20170372142), in view of Prince et al. (US 20220036052), in further view of Borawski et al. (US 20190058926).
Regarding claim 1, Bilobrov discloses, A computing system (Par. 0015-0017, system to match the reference fingerprint with portion of test content item) comprising:
a processor (Par. 0133); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by the processor, cause performance of a set of operations (Par. 0133) comprising:
obtaining, from a database, a reference media asset (Par. 0060, the live content stream or uploaded content item can be fingerprinted and stored, for example, in a reference database (e.g., the data store 112 of FIG. 1), Par. 0079, fingerprints generated for on-demand content items are stored in a static reference database. In some embodiments, fingerprints for content items (e.g., live content streams and on-demand content items) that were provided (e.g., streamed and/or uploaded) within a threshold period of time (e.g., within the last 24 hours, 48 hours, etc.) are stored in a real-time reference database, i.e. reference media is stored in database);
determining a length of the reference media asset, wherein the length is a total time of the reference media asset (par. 0087, 8B, set of fingerprinted frames 840 that were chronologically generated for the entirety of the reference content item, i.e. as shown in fig. 8B reference content items is dividing over the total length of reference content item, each divided portion is a chronological portions of entire content item, i.e. determining a length of total time);
segmenting the total time of the reference media asset that was obtained from the database into a plurality of portions including a first portion and a second portion (par. 0087, 8B, set of fingerprinted frames 840 that were chronologically generated for the entirety of the reference content item, i.e. as shown in fig. 8B reference content items is dividing over the total length of reference content item, each divided portion is a chronological portions of entire content item);
replacing, in the database from which the reference media asset was obtained, the reference media asset with the first portion of the plurality of portions (Par. 0093-0094, discard a portion of the first constituent media signatures from the reference media signature, i.e. replace the original reference media signature with signature without the discarded portion belonging to pause, or skip event),
Bilobrov does not disclose, replacing, in the database from which the reference media asset was obtained, the reference media asset with the first portion of the plurality of portions,
crediting media exposure using the first portion.
Prince discloses, replacing, in the database from which the reference media asset was obtained, the reference media asset with the first portion of the plurality of portions (Par. 0031, database storing signatures, Par. 0035-0036, segment a video that contains multiple pitches thrown in sequence into a series of clips that each show a single pitch. This approach may address the tendency of multiple-pitch videos to contain significant amounts of extraneous time where no pitch is occurring, time which is considered irrelevant in context of the proceeding analysis engine. More generally, the segmentation engine may be used to identify the specific motions of interest in a given context, while ignoring or discarding irrelevant portions of a longer video, approach allows for the potential of a significant storage requirement reduction, where only short segments of an input video can be stored, i.e. only storing portions of the longer video to in database, to save storage space = replacing original long video with certain portion of the longer video).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Bilobrov, by teaching of replacing, in the database from which the reference media asset was obtained, the reference media asset with the first portion of the plurality of portions, as taught by Prince, to potentially of a significant storage requirement reduction, where only short segments of an input video can be stored, as disclosed in Prince par. 000031.
Bilobrov in view of Prince does not disclose, crediting media exposure using the first portion.
crediting media exposure using the first portion (Par. 0081, comparing the third media signature with the reference media signature to identify presentation of the media at the third media device, identifying presentation of media at the media device = crediting that media was watched, see par. 0031, a crediting system to identify monitored media content by matching meter signatures (e.g., audio signatures) with reference media signatures 212).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Bilobrov in view of Prince, by teaching of crediting media exposure using the first portion, as taught by Borawski; to monitor media presentations made at the media devices to monitor exposure to advertisements, etc., as disclosed in Borawski par. 0026.
Regarding claim 2, The computing system of claim 1,
Bilobrov further discloses, wherein each of the plurality of portions represent discrete time segments of the total time (par. 0087, 8B, set of fingerprinted frames 840 that were chronologically generated for the entirety of the reference content item, i.e. as shown in fig. 8B reference content items is dividing over the total length of reference content item, each divided portion is a chronological time portions of entire content item).
Regarding claim 3, The computing system of claim 1,
Bilobrov further discloses, wherein the first portion and the second portion of the plurality of portions are temporally adjacent time segments (par. 0087, 8B, set of fingerprinted frames 840 that were chronologically generated for the entirety of the reference content item, i.e. as shown in fig. 8B reference content items is dividing over the total length of reference content item, each divided portion is a chronological time portions (i.e. temporally adjacent time segments) of entire content item).
Regarding claim 4, The computing system of claim 1,
Bilobrov in view of Prince in further view of Borawski further discloses, the set of operations further comprising: pruning the second portion of the plurality of portions from the reference media asset (Prince par.0035-0036 the segmentation engine may be used to identify the specific motions of interest in a given context, while ignoring or discarding irrelevant portions of a longer video, approach allows for the potential of a significant storage requirement reduction, where only short segments of an input video can be stored).
Regarding claim 5, The computing system of claim 1,
Bilobrov further discloses, wherein the reference media asset is associated with a streaming media asset (Par. 0057, the interface can also include an option for live streaming content items through the social networking system).
Regarding claim 6, The computing system of claim 1,
Bilobrov in view of Prince in further view of Borawski further discloses, the set of operations further comprising: obtaining, from a meter, a media asset; and comparing the media asset to the first portion of the plurality of portions (Borawski Par. 0031, a complete sequence of media signatures from start to end of the media 108, and its corresponding metadata (e.g., title, description, duration, episode, season, artist, owner, provider, etc.), which can be used by a crediting system to identify monitored media content by matching meter signatures (e.g., audio signatures) with reference media signatures 21 ).
Regarding claim 7, The computing system of claim 6,
Bilobrov in view of Prince in further view of Borawski further discloses, wherein the crediting occurs in response to the comparing (Borawski Par. 0031, a complete sequence of media signatures from start to end of the media 108, and its corresponding metadata (e.g., title, description, duration, episode, season, artist, owner, provider, etc.), which can be used by a crediting system to identify monitored media content by matching (i.e. by comparing) meter signatures (e.g., audio signatures) with reference media signatures 212).
Regarding claim 8, Bilobrov in view of Prince meets in further view of Borowski meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Bilobrov meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 2
Regarding claim 10, Bilobrov meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, Bilobrov in view of Prince in further view of Borawski meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, Bilobrov meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, Bilobrov in view of Prince in further view of Borawski meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, Bilobrov in view of Prince in further view of Borawski meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Bilobrov in view of Prince meets in further view of Borowski meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Bilobrov meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 2
Regarding claim 17, Bilobrov meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, Bilobrov in view of Prince in further view of Borawski meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, Bilobrov meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, Bilobrov in view of Prince in further view of Borawski meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 7 and 6.
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 AKSHAY DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, JOHN W MILLER can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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.
/A.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights