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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Karim fails to teach searching a social media feed associated with the user profile for a text item that corresponds to both news content (topic) preferences of a user profile and a displayed news video. Applicant emphasizes that in Karim, the user ratings (i.e. preferences) may be used to provide tailored news media files—suggesting that the text items only correspond to the news media item, but not the topic preference of the user.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited text items are analagous to the tweets displayed as an overlay in Figs. 8 and 9 of Karim. Those tweets “correspond” to the topic specified in the preferences, since they are directly relevant to the displayed news item on that topic. The tweets also correspond to the news video stream since they are overlaid on the stream. Therefore, under a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “correspond,” the tweets meet the limitation. The claim language does not require a more specific relationship than that taught in Karim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The claim recites only a preamble and does not include any substantive limitations.
Applicant may cancel the claim or amend the claim to place it in proper dependent form.
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 2, 4-7, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karim et al., US 2017/0094364.
Claims 2 and 11 and 21. Karim teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
a storage to store a user profile and circuitry configured for [Fig. 1, paras. 16, 88; also see paras. 35, 51-54, 73-75, 78, 85]:
generating for display, at a device associated with a user profile, a news video stream [media file 806, Figs. 8-10, 12, paras. 74, 78, 79];
identifying, in the user profile associated with the device, a content preference related to news video consumption, wherein the content preference is set via user interface selection identifying the content preference for consumption of news video streams [personal viewing preferences are set by user input and are used to selects news-related social media/news content, Figs. 3, 8, paras. 35, 51-54, 73-75, 78, 85];
searching a social media feed associated with the user profile [paras. 74, 75] for at least one text item corresponding both to (a) the content preference set via the user interface selection identifying the content preference for consumption of news video streams [text items (tweets) correspond to the news item, and therefore the topic preference since the news item relates to the topic, Figs. 3, 8-10, 12, paras. 35, 55, 78, 79, 85], and (b) to the news video stream and generating for display a feed comprising the at least one text item alongside the news video stream being generated for display [related social media text is searched and displayed along with news video 806, Figs. 3, 8-10, 12, paras. 35, 55, 78, 79, 85].
4 and 13. Karim teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the content preference comprises explanatory content [e.g. users can set preferences related to news (explanatory) content, paras. 35, 74].
5 and 14. Karim teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the content preference comprises data determined based at least in part on social media feed consumption habits associated with the device habits/prior inputs used to determine preferences, para. 78].
6 and 15. Karim teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the content preference comprises hyperlinks to supplemental content in the social media feed [news items/preferred content can include links to related content, para. 18, 21, 30, 34; in addition, tapping the screen amounts to tapping a “link” to open supplemental text, para. 73].
7 and 16. Karim teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the news video stream comprises live broadcast content [content that is currently streaming such as broadcast video 806 in Figs. 8-12 is not recorded, i.e. it is live].
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, 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 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karim as cited above in view of Weaver, US 2022/0156157.
3 and 12. Karim is silent on preferences comprising comedy. Weaver teaches a media recording system wherein the content preference comprises comedy [news parody preference, para. 63]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, allowing the user to specify certain types of news in order to avoid recommending serious news content to users who prefer satirical or humorous news.
Claims 8-10 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karim as cited above in view of Armaly, US 2020/0120384.
8 and 17 (from 2 and 11). The above references are silent on adjusting volume. Armaly teaches a display system wherein the user profile is associated with a user action associated with the device while receiving the news video stream, wherein based at least in part on the user action, the news video stream is modified by:
modulation of audio of a video, repeating a portion of the news video stream identified as critical, adjusting a volume control [volume is adjusted based on user movement, Figs. 1, 8, 11, paras. 12, 66, 68, 136], or replacing subtitles of the news video stream with dynamic subtitles from a second media video stream.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Armaly in order to maintain a constant perceived volume even when a user moves around the viewing area. As taught in Armaly, it is also useful to prevent some viewers (e.g. children) from hearing objectionable audio (e.g. by lowering volume based on approaching movement) [see Armaly, para. 2].
9 and 18. Armaly teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the user action is walking, driving, on the move [Figs. 1, 8, 11, paras. 12, 66, 68, 136], watching from a distance, or watching the video of the news video stream displayed by the device.
10 and 19. Armaly teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the user action is identified automatically based on monitoring a movement of a user associated with the device [Figs. 1, 8, 11, paras. 12, 22, 23, 49, 58, 66, 68, 136].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karim as cited above in view of Kummer, US 2016/0042766, further in view of Archibong et al., US 2014/0068692.
20. Karim is silent on substitution of audio.
Kummer teaches a video system including modifying the video stream by replacing an audio of the video stream with dynamic audio content from a second media video stream based on the identified user action [audio is replaced with replacement audio 141, from a replacement stream 140 that includes visual data (i.e. a second video stream, Figs. 1, 2, paras. 6, 8, 16, 18, 24-26]; and
generating for display the modified news video stream [Figs. 2, 3, para. 26].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references in order to provide news to viewers who do not speak the primary language of the broadcast, to inform rather than alienate viewers.
The above references are silent on determining user focus.
Archibong teaches a system including identifying a content preference related to news video consumption comprises identifying a user action associated with the device while receiving the news video stream, wherein the user action is focused watching of the news video stream displayed by the device [content actions are taken in response to determining viewer focus, para. 176].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Archibong, thereby determining when it is appropriate to replace audio. For example, when a viewer who speaks English as a second language is focused intently on a news segment, the audio can be replaced with audio in their first language to increase comprehension.
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 Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights