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 06/05/2026. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/05/2026 has been entered.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants assert on P.1 that “Samson does consider the use of SCTE markers that are provided with the media stream to determine the length of an ad break…”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the independent claims, Applicant has not explicitly claimed the use of SCTE markers and thus need not be interpreted as such. Additionally independent claims do not explicitly claim the use of SCTE markers that are provided with the media stream to determine the length of an ad break, and thus need not to be interpreted as such.
Samson teaches markers in, including, but not limited to Paragraph 0173, as well as identifiers/markers in Paragraph 0206 for starting point of ad break and ending point of ad break as well as data indicating duration of the ad break. Additionally a single advertisement can replace the duration of the ad break that contains consecutive advertisements.
B) Applicants assert on P.1 that “Samson does not, however, independently identify ads within the ad break, recognize which of these ads may or may not be replaceable, and then create a group marker for only the replaceable ads. Put another way, Samson
would only be capable of replacing an entire ad break; it does not consider to identify groups of consecutive replaceable ads that may not fill the entire duration of the ad break.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Note that the independent claims, do not explicitly claim create a group marker for only the replaceable ads, and thus do not need to be interpreted as such. Samson alone was not used to teach the independent claims, rather it is the combination of Samson, and Wachtfogel that was used to teach the claimed limitations. Wachtfogel taught the independent identification of ads, recognizing which of the ads may or may not be replaceable based on the tags. As Samson would allow for the replacement of the entire duration of an ad break. And Watchfogel provides tags on whether or not the advertisement is replaceable and prevents replacement of advertisements that are not replaceable. The combination of Samson and Watchtfogel would yield a combination, where when the entire ad duration consists of advertisements with replaceable tags, that entire ad duration may be replaced by a single advertisement. While other ad durations that may consist of non-replaceable advertisements, or a mix of replaceable and non-replaceable advertisements, a single advertisement would not replace the entire duration of the ad break. As non-replaceable ads are prevented from being replaced.
C) Applicants assert on P.2 that “Even to the limited extent that Hou considers "ad pods" identified by conventional SCTE markers (see paragraph 0016 cited above) in determining the length of an ad break occurring in a broadcast program, it does not consider to replace (or otherwise process) only a subset of that ad break. Hou does not consider whether the specific ads in the "ad pod" are replaceable, nor does it identify consecutive ads that may be replaceable by a single ad. Hou, like Samson, does not consider to create a new group marker based upon identified replaceable ads.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree. Note that the limitation(s) are taught by the combination of Sansom, Wachtfogel, Major, Hou, and Tanji. Please see the Office Action below. Furthermore, Applicant has not claimed replace (or otherwise process) only a subset of that ad break. Until Applicant only limits the claim limitations to pertain to “only a subset of the ad break”, claims need not be interpreted as such. And may be interpreted to encompass the entire ad break as well. Applicant has claimed “the group of two or more” which can include the entire ad break, and not necessarily be limited to just a subset of the ad break. So replacement (or process) of the entire ad break is taught the combination of references (as see in Office Action below), and meets the limitation of “the group of two or more” as an entire ad break constitutes the “more” part of the group.
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 two or more 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 two or more 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 and whether or not the digital advertisement is a replaceable advertisement;
replacing replaceable advertisements while not replacing those digital advertisements that are not tagged as replaceable.
In an analogous art, Wachtfogel teaches tagging each of plurality of digital advertisements with a digital marker that identifies the digital advertisement and whether or not the digital advertisement is a replaceable advertisement (Paragraph 0154, 0192-0194);
replacing replaceable advertisements while not replacing those digital advertisements that are not tagged as replaceable (Paragraph 0013, 0193 teaches tags indicating valid vendors associated with frames displaying advertised items in order to prevent replacement of a commercial for an item offered by a plurality of vendors. Paragraph 0154, 0194 teaches replacement tags indicating whether replacement of displaying commercials by displaying alternative commercials is allowed. As system can only replace advertisements that have replacement tags indicating replacement is allowed. Those advertisements that do not have replacement tags indicating replacement is allowed, would not allow for replacing, and thus would not be replaced. Additionally, system also prevents replacement of commercials as well. Thus, advertisements with replacement tags, indicating replacement is allowed, may have their advertisements replaced, while those that are not tagged as replaceable are not replaced).
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 and whether or not the digital advertisement is a replaceable advertisement; replacing replaceable advertisements while not replacing those digital advertisements that are not tagged as replaceable, 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 and 11 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 two or more consecutive replaceable advertisements (Sansom - Paragraph 0157, 0163, 0173; Fig.9, Paragraph 0203), but do not explicitly teach comprises, determining a total duration of the group of two or more consecutive advertisements by adding the durations of the advertisements making up the group of consecutive advertisements.
In an analogous art, Hou teaches comprises, determining a total duration of the group of two or more consecutive advertisements by adding the durations of the advertisements making up the group of consecutive 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, and Major to include comprises, determining a total duration of the group of two or more consecutive advertisements by adding the durations of the advertisements making up the group of consecutive 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.
The combination of Sansom, Wachtfogel, Major, and Hou teaches wherein the recognizing comprises determining a total duration of the group of two or more consecutive replaceable advertisements by adding the durations of the advertisements making up the group of consecutive replaceable advertisements. The combination provides for a system where when the entire duration of the ad break may contain all replaceable advertisements (group of two or more), the total duration of the ad pod is the total of all the ad durations within the ad pod.
Claim(s) 4, 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), in view of Hou (US 2025/0080799), and further in view of Tanji et al. (US 2017/0118526).
Consider claims 4 and 12, Sansom, Wachtfogel, Major, and Hou teach wherein the recognizing further comprises the total duration of the group of two or more consecutive replaceable advertisements, additional consecutive replaceable advertisement (Sansom - Paragraph 0157, 0163, 0173; Fig.9, Paragraph 0203; Hou - Paragraph 0016, 0048), but do not explicitly teach wherein the recognizing further comprises updating the total duration of the group of two or more consecutive advertisements as an additional consecutive advertisement is recognized by the data processing system.
In an analogous art, Tanji teaches wherein recognizing further comprises updating a total duration of a group of two or more consecutive advertisements as an additional consecutive advertisement is recognized by a data processing system (Paragraph 0119).
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 wherein recognizing further comprises updating a total duration of a group of two or more consecutive advertisements as an additional consecutive advertisement is recognized by a data processing system, as taught by Tanji, for the advantage of providing an accurate account on the actual total duration, allowing the system to process in more manageable chunks, as information is considered.
The combination of Sansom, Wachtfogel, Major, Hou, and Tanji teaches wherein the recognizing further comprises updating the total duration of the group of two or more consecutive replaceable advertisements as an additional consecutive replaceable advertisement is recognized by the data processing system. The combination provides for a system where when the entire duration of the ad break may contain all replaceable advertisements (group of two or more), the total duration of the ad pod is the total of all the ad durations within the ad pod. Tanji is able to determine current duration of ad, then next duration of subsequent ads, in order to come up with the total duration of the ad break. Thus, in the combination, the total duration is updated as subsequent consecutive advertisements that are part of that ad break are recognized.
Consider claims 17 and 19, Sansom, Wachtfogel, Major, Hou, and Tanji teach wherein the recognizing further comprises tagging, the group of two ore more consecutive replaceable advertisements, the group of consecutive replaceable advertisements (Sansom – Paragraph 0157, 0163, 0173; Fig.9, Paragraph 0203; Wachtfogel - Paragraph 0154, 0192-0194).
Hou further teaches tagging is creating a group marker representing the group of two or more consecutive advertisements, wherein the group marker comprises the total duration of the group of consecutive advertisements.
In an analogous art, Hou further teaches tagging is creating a group marker representing the group of two or more consecutive advertisements, wherein the group marker comprises the total duration of the group of consecutive 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, Tanji, and Hou to include tagging is creating a group marker representing the group of two or more consecutive advertisements, wherein the group marker comprises the total duration of the group of consecutive 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.
The combination of Sansom, Wachtfogel, Major, Hou, and Tanji teaches creating a group marker representing the group of two or more consecutive replaceable advertisements, wherein the group marker comprises the total duration of the group of consecutive replaceable advertisements. The combination provides for a system where when the entire duration of the ad break may contain all replaceable advertisements (group of two or more). Thus, in the combination, the marker that signals the sequence of ads making up the pod, signals the entire ad pod, which is comprised of replaceable advertisements.
Consider claims 18 and 20, Sansom, Wachtfogel, Major, Hou, and Tanji teach replacing the entire group of two or more consecutive replaceable advertisements with a single replacement advertisement without replacing any other advertisements that are not tagged as replaceable advertisement (Sansom – Paragraph 0157, 0163, 0173; Fig.9, Paragraph 0203; Wachtfogel - Paragraph 0154, 0192-0194; Paragraph 0013, 0193, 0154, 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
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
Prosecution Insights