DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argue that Kamimaki fails to teach "receiving, by a second device, an indication of a fragment identifier for a fragment of a video content item being output via a first device", "sending, by the second device, a request for a supplemental content item associated with the video content item being output via the first device, wherein the request comprises the fragment identifier" and "receiving, based on the fragment identifier, a fragment of the supplemental content item". The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kamimaki clearly discloses "sending, by the second device, a request for a supplemental content item associated with the video content item being output via the first device, wherein the request comprises the fragment identifier"(see included but not limited to: see fig.6; page.7,¶0067-¶0068; in fig.6,100 101, 102, [0067] discloses a stream 600 coming from the broadcast wave includes: the automobile commercial content 601 that is the main content; automobile information 602 including a URL of a home page of an automobile manufacturer, and prices are grades; and commercial song information 603. The automobile information 602 and the commercial song information 603 are the subsidiary content ( in fig.6 the subsidiary content receiver displayed the auto prices grades and BGM artist album name); [0068] discloses the subsidiary content control receiver A 102 transmits an acquisition request 605 to acquire the automobile information 602, which accompanies broadcast wave video content information 600, to the main content receiving display unit 100 together with ID information. The main content receiving display unit 100 analyzes the received data, and then judges that the received data includes the acquisition request to acquire the automobile information. Then, the main content receiving display unit 100 analyzes metadata information including URLs of Web sites from the video content 604 received through the broadband Internet so as to extract the automobile information…), and further discloses "receiving, based on the fragment identifier, a fragment of the supplemental content item"(see included but not limited to: in [0068] discloses the automobile information is transmitted to the subsidiary content control receiver A 101 together with the ID information of the subsidiary content control receiver A 101).
Regarding the Double Patenting rejection of the pending claims, applicant filed a Terminal Disclaimer on 12/01/205 approved, therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claims Status
Claims 1-28 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3,5-10,12-17.19-24 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2008/0077965 A1 to Kamimaki et al.
As to claims 1 and 8, Kamimaki discloses a method [an apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus] to comprising: receiving, by a second device, an indication of a fragment identifier for a fragment of a video content item being output via a first device; sending, by the second device, a request for a supplemental content item associated with the video content item being output via the first device, wherein the request comprises the fragment identifier; receiving, based on the fragment identifier, a fragment of the supplemental content item (see fig. 5-6; page.7,¶0067-¶0069 and ¶0062-¶0064; in fig.6,100 101, 102, [0067] discloses a stream 600 coming from the broadcast wave includes: the automobile commercial content 601 that is the main content; automobile information 602 including a URL of a home page of an automobile manufacturer, and prices are grades; and commercial song information 603. The automobile information 602 and the commercial song information 603 are the subsidiary content ( in fig.6 the subsidiary content receiver displayed the auto prices grades and BGM artist album name); [0068] discloses the subsidiary content control receiver A 102 transmits an acquisition request 605 to acquire the automobile information 602, which accompanies broadcast wave video content information 600, to the main content receiving display unit 100 together with ID information. The main content receiving display unit 100 analyzes the received data, and then judges that the received data includes the acquisition request to acquire the automobile information. Then, the main content receiving display unit 100 analyzes metadata information including URLs of Web sites from the video content 604 received through the broadband Internet so as to extract the automobile information…); and causing output of the fragment of the supplemental content item (see fig.5 and 6; page.7,¶0068-¶0069; in [0068] discloses the automobile information is transmitted to the subsidiary content control receiver A 101 together with the ID information of the subsidiary content control receiver A 101).
As to claims 2 and 9, Kamimaki further discloses wherein the supplemental content item may comprise one or more of one or more versions of audio content, metadata, text, or an application (see fig.5 and 6; page.7,¶0062,¶0067).
As to claims 3 and 10, Kamimaki further discloses wherein the fragment identifier of the video content item is based on the fragment of the video content item currently being output via the first device (see fig.5 and 6; page.7,¶0063-¶0064 and ¶0068-¶0070).
As to claims 5 and 12, Kamimaki further discloses wherein the indication of the fragment identifier is received from the first device and wherein the request for the supplemental content item is sent to a third device(see fig.5 and 6; page.7,¶0064 and ¶0069).
As to claims 6 and 13, Kamimaki further discloses wherein the indication of the fragment identifier is received from a third device (see fig.5 and 6; page.7,¶0064 and ¶0069).
As to claims 7 and 14, Kamimaki further discloses wherein the request for the supplemental content item comprises an indication of a type of the supplemental content item (see fig.5 and 6; page.7,¶0063-¶0064 and ¶0068-¶0070).
As to claim 15, claim 15 is directed toward embody the method of claim 1 in “computer readable medium”. It has to embody the procedures of Kamimaki (see fig.1-2) discussed with respect to claim 1 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; there by the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 16, claim 16 is directed toward embody the method of claim 2 in “computer readable medium”. It has to embody the procedures of Kamimaki (see fig.1-2) discussed with respect to claim 1 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; there by the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 17, claim 17 is directed toward embody the method of claim 3 in “computer readable medium”. It has to embody the procedures of Kamimaki (see fig.1-2) discussed with respect to claim 1 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; there by the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 19, claim 19 is directed toward embody the method of claim 5 in “computer readable medium”. It has to embody the procedures of Kamimaki (see fig.1-2) discussed with respect to claim 1 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; there by the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 20, claim 20 is directed toward embody the method of claim 6 in “computer readable medium”. It has to embody the procedures of Kamimaki (see fig.1-2) discussed with respect to claim 1 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; there by the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 21, claim 21 is directed toward embody the method of claim 7 in “computer readable medium”. It has to embody the procedures of Kamimaki (see fig.1-2) discussed with respect to claim 1 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; there by the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 22, is analyzed the same rejection with respect to system claim 8.
As to claim 23, is analyzed the same rejection with respect to system claim 9.
As to claim 24, is analyzed the same rejection with respect to system claim 10.
As to claim 26, is analyzed the same rejection with respect to system claim 12.
As to claim 27, is analyzed the same rejection with respect to system claim 13
As to claim 28, is analyzed the same rejection with respect to system claim 14.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 4,11, 8 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0077965 A1 to Kamimaki et al in view of US 8,869,222 B2 to Winograd et al.
As to claims 4 and 11, Kamimaki fails explicitly discloses receiving metadata associated with the fragment of the supplemental content item, wherein the metadata facilitates synchronization of the supplemental content item with the video content item.
Winograd discloses receiving metadata associated with the fragment of the supplemental content item, wherein the metadata facilitates synchronization of the supplemental content item with the video content item (see fig.4; col.4,ll.54-60 and col.11,ll.33-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamimaki with the teaching as taught by Winograd in order to present a secondary content to the user to allow full comprehension of the first content.
As to claim 18, claim 18 is directed toward embody the method of claim 4 in “computer readable medium”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Kamimaki and Winograd discussed with respect to claim 4 in a “computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor. It comprises substantially the same method as discussed in claim above; there by the same rejection is applicable.
As to claim 25, is analyzed the same rejection with respect to system claim 11.
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 MULUGETA MENGESHA whose telephone number is (469)295-9212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
MULUGETA MENGESHA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/Mulugeta Mengesha/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights