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 .
Objections to the claims
Claims 12; 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double patenting
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2; 4-8; 10-13; 15-17; 21-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11509944 in view of Liu (US.Pub.No. 20170257669) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced US. Patent and would be covered by any patent granted on that copending application since the referenced US. Patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Claim 1 of the current application corresponds to claim 1 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 2 of the current application corresponds to claim 10 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 3 of the current application corresponds to claim 11 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 4 of the current application corresponds to claim 11 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 5 of the current application corresponds to claim 2 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 6 of the current application corresponds to claim 1 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 7 of the current application corresponds to claim 4 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 8 of the current application corresponds to claim 4 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 9 of the current application corresponds to claim 5 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 10 of the current application corresponds to claim 6 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 11 of the current application corresponds to claim 8 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 12 of the current application corresponds to claim 1 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 13 of the current application corresponds to claim 1 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 14 of the current application corresponds to claims 12; 23 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 15 of the current application corresponds to claim 21 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 16 of the current application corresponds to claim 22 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 17 of the current application corresponds to claim 22 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 18 of the current application corresponds to claim 13 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 19 of the current application corresponds to claims 12; 23 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 20 of the current application corresponds to claim 15 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 21 of the current application corresponds to claim 15 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 22 of the current application corresponds to claim 16 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 23 of the current application corresponds to claim 17 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 24 of the current application corresponds to claims 12; 23 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 25 of the current application corresponds to claims 12; 23 of US. Pat(11509944).
Claim 26 of the current application corresponds to claims 12; 23 of US. Pat(11509944).
claims 1; 12; 23 of the US. Patent .No. 11509944 teach the subject matter of the claims 1; 14 of the instant application except the limitations:
“perform a determination of whether the first time point is after a first threshold time point within the content; transmit a request for clips of the content comprising events of the content which occurred prior to the first time point within the content based on the determination that the first time point is after the first threshold time point ”.
Liu (US.Pub.No.20170257669) et al are from the same field of endeavor as the instant application and the US.Patent.No.11509944. Liu et al in para. 0049-0050; 0058-0060 disclose a system being able to make determination to provide summary of contents being missed by users based on length of time or duration being greater than a threshold value.
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use probability parameters as threshold values in order to make appropriate determination as transmitting request for video contents or displaying summary of contents associated with threshold time or duration as disclosed by the instant application 18903379 and as taught in para. 0049-0050; 0058-0060; by US.Pub.No. 20170257669 for the purpose of improving the capability of the network accordingly.
Claims rejections-35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 1-8; 13-21; 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishore (US.Pub.20140101707) in view of Liu (US.Pub.No. 20170257669).
Regarding claim 1, Kishore et al disclose a terminal for presenting clips for distributed content, the terminal comprising: one or more controllers: and configured to: a memory storing instructions thereon, wherein execution of the stored instructions by the one or more controllers causes the terminal to: receive an input for presenting content while the content is currently being distributed live at a first time point within the content(see fig.4 with element 404; a processor system 404 and element 406 representing a memory; 0084; and the system allows users to input data via user interface to send request for video contents;0088);
transmit a request for clips of the content comprising events of the content which occurred prior to the first time point within the content(user is able to send request for clips of video contents;0045;0060-0061; 0064);
receive information for displaying a plurality of clips of the content comprising events of the content which occurred prior to the first time point within the content(see fig.2 where the system is able to present summary of missed portion of the video content to the users; 0016; 0021;0060-0061; 0025); and
display, via a display associated with the terminal, the plurality of clips of the content using the received information before a remainder of the content is displayed(see fig.4, element 110; with Kishore, the system is able to resume the display of the media content upon finishing the presentation of the clips of the media content; 0012-0014; 0024; 0064; 0093; 0100;0016).
But did not explicitly disclose perform a determination of whether the first time point is after a first threshold time point within the content; transmit a request for clips of the content comprising events of the content which occurred prior to the first time point within the content based on the determination that the first time point is after the first threshold time point.
However, Liu et al disclose perform a determination of whether the first time point is after a first threshold time point within the content; transmit a request for clips of the content comprising events of the content which occurred prior to the first time point within the content based on the determination that the first time point is after the first threshold time point(see fig.5; with Liu, the system is capable of making determination to provide summary of contents being missed by users based on length of time or duration being greater than a threshold value; 0049-0050; 0058-0060).
It would have been obvious for any person of ordinary skill in the art at that time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Liu to modify Kishore by using characteristics of probability as threshold value resulting in “ perform a determination of whether the first time point is after a first threshold time point within the content; transmit a request for clips of the content comprising events of the content which occurred prior to the first time point within the content based on the determination that the first time point is after the first threshold time point” for the purpose of improving the capability of the network accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, Kishore et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the determination further comprises whether the first time point is before a second threshold time point within the content.
However, Liu et al disclose wherein the determination further comprises whether the first time point is before a second threshold time point within the content(with Liu, the system is able to use probability technique as threshold data for comparing data in order to make determination; 0058-0060; 0049-0050).
It would have been obvious for any person of ordinary skill in the art at that time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Neumeier to modify Kishore by using characteristics of probability as threshold value resulting in “ wherein the determination further comprises whether the first time point is before a second threshold time point within the content ” for the purpose of improving the capability of the network accordingly.
Regarding claim 3, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Kishore et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the first threshold time point and the second threshold time point are preset for the content.
However, Liu et al disclose wherein the first threshold time point and the second threshold time point are preset for the content(the system can apply preset value associated with threshold values as five minutes; six minutes; three minutes).
It would have been obvious for any person of ordinary skill in the art at that time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Liu to modify Kishore by using characteristics of probability as threshold value resulting in “ wherein the first threshold time point and the second threshold time point are preset for the content” for the purpose of improving the capability of the network accordingly.
Regarding claim 5, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Kishore et al disclose wherein execution of the stored instructions by the one or more controllers further causes the terminal to: receive information for displaying additional clips of the content comprising events of the content which occurred while the plurality of clips of the content were being displayed: automatically display the additional clips of the content after the plurality of clips of the content are displayed but before the remainder of the content is displayed: and display, via the display, the remainder of the content after all of the plurality of clips of the content and the additional clips of the content have been displayed(the system can automatically resume presentation of the video content upon conclusion of the presented series of summaries; 0014-0015; 0024;0064).
Regarding claim 7, Kishore et al disclose wherein the remainder of the content is displayed as it is currently being distributed live(the system is able to provide live transmission; 0003).
Regarding claim 8, Kishore et al disclose wherein the content corresponds to a live sporting event and the plurality of clips of the content correspond to highlights of the live sporting event that took place prior to the first time point(the system is able to provide summaries or highlights related to sporting event; abstract; 0013-0016).
Regarding claim 13, Kishore et al disclose wherein execution of the stored instructions by the one or more controllers causes the terminal to display a timeline while the content is being displayed, and display one or more indicators on the timeline corresponding to significant events which have occurred during the content(see fig.2 for displaying timeline related to events being processed; 0042-0045).
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 7.
Regarding claim 21, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 8.
Regarding claim 26, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 13.
Claim(s) 9-10; 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishore (US.Pub.20140101707) in view of Liu (US.Pub.No.20170257669 ) and Bowers (US.Pub.No.20150016800).
Regarding claim 9, Kishore and Liu et al did not explicitly disclose wherein execution of the stored instructions by the one or more controllers causes the terminal to: display, via the display, one or more selectable options for inputting criteria of clips of the content to be displayed; and receive at least one input to the displayed one or more selectable options for selecting at least one criteria of clips of the content, wherein the transmitted request includes information of the selected at least one criteria of clips of the content.
However, Bowers et al disclose wherein execution of the stored instructions by the one or more controllers causes the terminal to: display, via the display, one or more selectable options for inputting criteria of clips of the content to be displayed; and receive at least one input to the displayed one or more selectable options for selecting at least one criteria of clips of the content, wherein the transmitted request includes information of the selected at least one criteria of clips of the content(with Bowers, users are able to receive video content based on their preferences and some predefined criteria or conditions; 0033;0050;0056;0090;0037).
It would have been obvious for any person of ordinary skill in the art at that time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Bowers to modify Kishore and Liu by applying user interface with options to set or define or customize length of installment or clips of Bowers to Kishore resulting in “wherein execution of the stored instructions by the one or more controllers causes the terminal to: display, via the display, one or more selectable options for inputting criteria of clips of the content to be displayed; and receive at least one input to the displayed one or more selectable options for selecting at least one criteria of clips of the content, wherein the transmitted request includes information of the selected at least one criteria of clips of the content” for the purpose of increasing the satisfaction of the users accordingly.
Regarding claim 10, Kishore and Liu et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more selectable options comprises an option for setting a total length of time for displaying the plurality of clips of the content.
However, Bowers et al disclose wherein the one or more selectable options comprises an option for setting a total length of time for displaying the plurality of clips of the content( see fig.7 and fig.8 with user interface for allowing user to select installments with different durations or lengths; , 0056; 0073-0074; 0033).
It would have been obvious for any person of ordinary skill in the art at that time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Bowers to modify Kishore and Liu by applying user interface with options to set or define or customize length of installment or clips of Bowers to Kishore resulting in “wherein the one or more selectable options comprises an option for setting a total length of time for displaying the plurality of clips of the content ” for the purpose of increasing the satisfaction of the users accordingly.
Regarding claim 22, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 9.
Regarding claim 23, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 10.
Claim(s) 11;24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishore (US.Pub.20140101707) in view of Liu (US.Pub.No.20170257669) and Panchaksharaiah (20180310045).
Regarding claim 11, Kishore and Liu et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of clips of the content are selected for display based on an importance of the one or more of clips to an overall outcome of the content, and the importance of each of the one or more clips is determined by a corresponding rating score for each clip being greater than or equal to a rating score threshold.
However, Panchaksharaiah (“045”) et al disclose wherein the plurality of clips of the content are selected for display based on an importance of the one or more of clips to an overall outcome of the content, and the importance of each of the one or more clips is determined by a corresponding rating score for each clip being greater than or equal to a rating score threshold(the media guidance application may retrieve an importance score associated with a first segment, where the importance score is an indicator of how important the first segment is to the media asset, 0017; 0076-0077).
It would have been obvious for any person of ordinary skill in the art at that time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Panchaksharaiah (“045”) to modify Kishore and Liu by using importance associated with video clips for the purpose of improving viewing experience.
Regarding claim 24, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN D SAINT CYR whose telephone number is (571)270-3224. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 at 5712727527. 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.
/JEAN D SAINT CYR/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
/Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425