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 responsive to application No. 18/819,170 filed on 11/21/2025. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9, 3, 4, 11, and 12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
A) Claim 9 recites:
“replacing, by the data processing system, the entire group of replaceable advertisements in the media stream with a single replacement advertisement”
Only “a group of consecutive replaceable advertisements” are mentioned prior into the claim. As “consecutive” was a recent amendment, it appears it may be a typo that it was not included for this particular part of the limitation. Since independent claim 1, which recites similar limitations does recite: ““replacing, by the data processing system, the entire group of consecutive replaceable advertisements in the media stream with a single replacement advertisement”
Please amend to:
--replacing, by the data processing system, the entire group of consecutive replaceable advertisements in the media stream with a single replacement advertisement--
B) Claim(s) 3 and 11 recite:
“wherein the recognizing comprises determining a total duration of the group of consecutive replacement advertisements by adding the durations of the advertisements making up the group of consecutive replacement advertisements”
Only “a group of consecutive replaceable advertisements” are mentioned in claim(s) 1 and 9, from which claims 3 and 11 ultimately depend on.
Please amend to:
--wherein the recognizing comprises determining a total duration of the group of consecutive replaceable advertisements by adding the durations of the advertisements making up the group of consecutive replaceable advertisements--
C) Claim(s) 4 and 12 recite:
“wherein the single replacement advertisement has substantially the same length as the total duration of the group of consecutive replacement advertisements”
Please see reasoning in part (B) above.
Please amend to:
--wherein the single replacement advertisement has substantially the same length as the total duration of the group of consecutive replaceable advertisements—
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sansom et al. (US 2013/0014190) in view of Wachtfogel et al. (US 2002/0138831).
Consider claims 1 and 9, Sansom teaches an automated process performed by a data processing system to insert digital advertisements in a digital media stream and a data processing system comprising a processor, non-transitory data storage and an interface to a network, wherein the non-transitory data storage comprises computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor (Paragraph 0261, 0295-0296), perform an automated process comprising:
recognizing a plurality of advertisements in the digital media stream; recognizing a group of consecutive replaceable advertisements in the media stream based upon digital markers of the advertisements; and replacing, by the data processing system, the entire group of consecutive replaceable advertisements in the media stream with a single replacement advertisement (Paragraph 0157 teaches the total length of one or more replacement advertisement content items is equal to the duration of the advertisement break. Paragraph 0163 teaches total duration of all the one or more replacement advertisement content items is at least equal to the length of the advertisement break into which they are inserted in place of original advertisement content items. Paragraph 0173 teaches markers denoting start and end of advertisement break. Fig.9, Paragraph 0203 teaches advertisement break 176, containing four advertisement content items 176a, 176b, 176c, 176d. Paragraph 0206 teaches identifiers/markers for start point of advertisement break, and end point of advertisement break, as well as data indicating duration of the advertisement break. As one or more replacement advertisement can be equal to the duration of the advertisement break. When ad break contains multiple consecutive advertisement content items, like taught in Fig.9, paragraph 0203, one replacement advertisement may replace the four consecutive advertisements in that entire group).
Sansom does not explicitly teach tagging each of the plurality of digital advertisements with a digital marker that identifies the digital advertisement.
In an analogous art, Wachtfogel teaches tagging each of plurality of digital advertisements with a digital marker that identifies the digital advertisement (Paragraph 0154, 0192-0194).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Sansom to include tagging each of plurality of digital advertisements with a digital marker that identifies the digital advertisement, as taught by Samson, for the advantage of enabling the system to easily process and make determinations on advertisement content quickly and effectively.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sansom et al. (US 2013/0014190), in view of Wachtfogel et al. (US 2002/0138831), and further in view of Major (US 11,979,624).
Consider claims 2 and 10, Sansom and Wachtfogel teach wherein each of the digital markers comprises an identifier of the advertisement, a start of the advertisement within the digital media stream, and a duration of the advertisement (Watchtfogel – Paragraph 0089, 0137, 0154, 0192-0194, 0196; Figs.6-7, Paragraph 0167, 0172), but do not explicitly teach wherein start is a start time of the advertisement.
In an analogous art, Major teaches wherein start is a start time of an advertisement (Abstract, Col 2: lines 5-6, Col 9: lines 3-10 teaches content may include ad marker 202, e.g., an SCTE 35 cue, that includes a presentation time stamp, PTS field. Where ad marker comprises an indicated start time of an available segment, Col 9: lines 52-55 teaches ad marker would typically indicate how long available section 214 continued after indicated start time, which results in an indicated end time 205).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Sansom and Wachtfogel to include wherein start is a start time of the advertisement, as taught by Major, for the advantage of accurately providing and determining when advertisement(s) is/are to commence in the content, allowing for greater accuracy and response(s) in timing of advertisement breaks.
Claim(s) 3-4, 11-12, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sansom et al. (US 2013/0014190), in view of Wachtfogel et al. (US 2002/0138831), in view of Major (US 11,979,624), and further in view of Hou (US 2025/0080799).
Consider claims 3 and 11, Sansom, Wachtfogel, and Major teach the recognizing comprises determining a total duration of the group of consecutive replacement advertisements (Sansom - Paragraph 0157, 0163, 0173; Fig.9, Paragraph 0203), but do not explicitly teach comprises, determining a total duration of the group of consecutive replacement advertisements by adding the durations of the advertisements making up the group of consecutive replacement advertisements.
In an analogous art, Hou teaches comprises, determining a total duration of the group of consecutive replacement advertisements by adding the durations of the advertisements making up the group of consecutive replacement advertisements (Paragraph 0016, 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Sansom and Wachtfogel to include comprises, determining a total duration of the group of consecutive replacement advertisements by adding the durations of the advertisements making up the group of consecutive replacement advertisements, as taught by Hou, for the advantage of ensuring the advertising break to remain as intended, based on original duration of advertisement(s), without unduly being extended, disrupting the predetermined balance of advertising in the content.
Consider claims 4 and 12, Sansom, Wachtfogel, Major, and Hou teach wherein the single replacement advertisement has substantially the same length as the total duration of the group of consecutive replacement advertisements (Sansom – Paragraph 0157, 0163, 0173, 0203; Hou – Paragraph 0016, 0048).
Consider claims 17 and 19, Sansom, Wachtfogel, Major, and Hou teach wherein the recognizing further comprises tagging (Sansom – Paragraph 0157, 0163, 0173; Fig.9, Paragraph 0203; Wachtfogel - Paragraph 0154, 0192-0194), but do not explicitly teach tagging the group of consecutive advertisements with a group marker that comprises the total duration of the group of consecutive replaceable advertisements.
In an analogous art, Hou further teaches tagging group of consecutive advertisements with a group marker that comprises a total duration of the group of consecutive replaceable advertisements (Paragraph 0016, 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Sansom, Wachtfogel, Major, and Hou to include tagging group of consecutive advertisements with a group marker that comprises a total duration of the group of consecutive replaceable advertisements, as taught further by Hou, for the advantage of providing quick access to information regarding a grouping of advertisements, allowing the system to determine and process information quickly and effectively.
Consider claims 18 and 20, Sansom, Wachtfogel, Major, and Hou teach wherein the replacing is performed based upon the group marker (Sansom – Paragraph 0157, 0163, 0173; Fig.9, Paragraph 0203; Wachtfogel - Paragraph 0154, 0192-0194; Hou - Paragraph 0016, 0048).
Claim(s) 5-8 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sansom et al. (US 2013/0014190), in view of Wachtfogel et al. (US 2002/0138831), in view of Major (US 11,979,624), and further in view of Lyons et al. (US 2002/0061067).
Consider claims 5 and 13, Sansom, Wachtfogel, and Major teach further comprising filtering the digital markers associated with at least some of the digital advertisements (Wachtfogel - Paragraph 0154, 0192-0194), but do not explicitly teach wherein filtering is to correct the duration of the advertisement.
In an analogous art, Lyons teaches wherein filtering is to correct the duration of the advertisement (Paragraph 0042-0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Sansom, Wachtfogel, and Major to include wherein filtering is to correct the duration of the advertisement, as taught by Lyons, for the advantage of matching the network Elementary Stream slot duration with the commercial slot duration or vice versa (Lyons – Paragraph 0042), to guarantee proper timing and playback of the content.
Consider claims 6 and 14, Sansom, Wachtfogel, Major, and Lyons teach wherein the filtering further comprises adapting the digital markers based upon one or more policy rules (Watchtfogel – Paragraph 0089, 0119, 0137, 0154, 0192-0194, 0196; Figs.6-7, Paragraph 0167, 0172).
Consider claims 7 and 15, Sansom, Wachtfogel, Major, and Lyons teach wherein the policy rules are input to the data processing system with a macro structure that generates multiple policy rules from a single administrator input (Watchtfogel – Paragraph 0089, 0119, 0137, 0154, 0192-0194, 0196; Figs.6-7, Paragraph 0167, 0172).
Consider claims 8 and 16, Major further teaches comprising placing a query from the data processing system to a database to obtain additional information about the digital advertisement, and wherein the filtering comprises adapting the digital marker based upon the additional information (Col 9: lines 11-41, Col 11: lines 5-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Sansom, Wachtfogel, Major, and Lyons to include comprising placing a query from the data processing system to a database to obtain additional information about the digital advertisement, and wherein the filtering comprises adapting the digital marker based upon the additional information, as further taught by Major, for the advantage of realigning ad markers with the content stream (Major – Col 9: lines 11-12), where inaccurate or incorrect markers can results in artifacts perceived by the end user (Major – Col 9: lines 18-19), thereby improving the user experience (Major – Col 9: lines 24).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON K LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1446. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Brian Pendleton can be reached on 571-272-7527. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON K LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425