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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,881,012. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because representative patent method claim 8 requires the additional elements (See the highlighted elements shown in the table below) not required by representative application method claim 1. However, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The claims recite common subject matter;
Whereby representative application claim 1 which recite the open-ended transitional phrase "comprising", does not preclude the additional elements recited by representative patent claim 8, and
Whereby the elements of representative application claim 1 is fully anticipated by representative patent claim 8, and anticipation is "the ultimate or epitome of obviousness". (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
US Application No. 18/911,726
US Patent No. 11,881,012 B1
Claim 1. A method comprising:
Claim 8. A method comprising:
providing, by a computing system, a sequence of audio features and a sequence of video features as an input to a transition detector neural network, wherein the sequence of audio features and the sequence of video features are from a portion of a sequence of media content, wherein the transition detector neural network is configured to classify whether or not a given input includes a transition between different content segments, wherein the transition detector neural network is configured to output classification data corresponding to the input;
extracting, by a computing system, a sequence of audio features from a portion of a sequence of media content; extracting, by the computing system, a sequence of video features from the portion of the sequence of media content; providing, by the computing system, the sequence of audio features and the sequence of video features as an input to a transition detector neural network, wherein the transition detector neural network is configured to classify whether or not a given input includes a transition between different content segments;
determining, by the computing system, that a probability included in classification data output by the transition detector neural network in response to providing the sequence of audio features and the sequence of video features satisfies a threshold indicating a transition between different content segments; and outputting, by the computing system, transition data indicating that the portion of the sequence of media content includes a transition between different content segments based on determining that the probability included in the classification data satisfies the threshold, wherein the transition data identifies a probable location of the transition within the portion of the sequence of media content.
obtaining, by the computing system, from the transition detector neural network classification data corresponding to the input; determining, by the computing system, that the classification data is indicative of a transition between different content segments; based on determining that the classification data is indicative of a transition between different content segments, by the computing system, transition data indicating that the portion of the sequence of media content includes a transition between different content segments, wherein the transition data identifies a probable location of the transition within the portion of the sequence of media content; obtaining secondary data identifying whether any frames within the portion of the sequence of media content are keyframes or black frames; excluding any locations within the portion of the sequence of media content that are not within a threshold distance of either of a keyframe or a black frame from being considered a location of the transition within the portion of the sequence of media content; and including one or more locations within the portion of the sequence of media content that are within the threshold distance of either of a keyframe or a black as being considered the location of the transition within the portion of the sequence of media content, wherein the transition detector neural network is configured to determine, for each frame of the given input, a probability indicative of whether or not the frame includes a transition between different content segments, wherein: the classification data comprises probabilities for respective frames of the input, and determining that the classification data is indicative of a transition between different content segments comprises determining that a probability of the probabilities satisfies a threshold condition.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to ATA 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.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, 9-10, 12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitra, et al. (US 20170264969 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Mitra, et al. disclose a method comprising: providing, by a computing system, a sequence of audio features and a sequence of video features as an input to a transition detector neural network, i.e., supervised and unsupervised neural network advertisement detection modules, wherein the sequence of audio features and the sequence of video features are from a portion of a sequence of media content (See for example, paragraphs 0077, 0084, and Fig. 2), wherein the transition detector neural network is configured to classify whether or not a given input includes a transition between different content segments, i.e., media content/television programs and/or advertisement, wherein the transition detector neural network is configured to output classification data corresponding to the input (See for example, paragraphs 0050-0053); determining, by the computing system, that a probability included in classification data output by the transition detector neural network in response to providing the sequence of audio features and the sequence of video features satisfies a threshold, i.e., positive match lies in a range of 40-300 matches and if it is below 40 discard the matches, indicating a transition between different content segments (See for example, paragraphs 0050-0053) ; and outputting, by the computing system, transition data indicating that the portion of the sequence of media content includes a transition between different content segments based on determining that the probability included in the classification data satisfies the threshold, wherein the transition data identifies a probable location of the transition, i.e., via placing advertisements in between 1 hour broadcast of the drama show, within the portion of the sequence of media content (See for example, paragraphs 0045, 0068, and 0083-084)..
With regard to claim 5, the method of claim 1, wherein the transition detector neural network is configured to determine, for each frame of the given input, a probability indicative of whether or not the frame includes a transition between different content segments (See for example, paragraphs 0050-0053).
With regard to claim 9, the method of claim 1, wherein the transition between different content segments comprises a transition between different program segments, different advertisement segments, or an advertisement segment and a program segment (See for example, paragraphs 0045 and 0068).
Claim 10 is rejected the same as claim 1. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 10. Claim 10 distinguishes from claim 1 only in that it recites a tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions. Fortunately, Mitra (See for example, paragraph 0020) teaches this feature.
Claim 12 is rejected the same as claim 5. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 5 is applicable to claim 12.
Claim 16 is rejected the same as claim 1 except claim 16 is an apparatus claim. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 16.
Claim 17 is rejected the same as claim 5 except claim 17 is an apparatus claim. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 5 is applicable to claim 17.
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 2-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra, et al. ‘969 in view of Witkowski, et al. (Improving Advertisement Delivery in Video Streaming).
With regard to claim 2, Mitra, et al. (hereinafter "Mitra") discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already discussed above in paragraph 8, and incorporated herein by reference. While it is an obvious design choice to include a recurrent neural network, Mitra docs not expressly call for wherein the transition detector neural network comprises a recurrent neural network. However, Witkowski, et al. (See for example, pages 13-14) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Witkowski, et al. with Mitra. The motivation for doing so is for no other reason than to provide a recurrent neural network to detect scene changes/ commercial in a given media content (See for example, page 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Mitra with Witkowski, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
With regard to claim 3, the method of claim 2, wherein the recurrent neural network comprises audio feature extraction layers, video feature extraction layers (See for example, pages 4, 13, and 20), and classification layers (See for example, pages 8 and 13 of Witkowski).
With regard to claim 4, the method of claim 3, wherein the classification layers comprise bidirectional long short-term memory layers and fully convolutional neural network layers (See for example, page 14, paragraphs 2-3 " the machine learned model can be or include one or more convolutional neural network. ").
Claim 11 is rejected the same as claims 2-4. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claims 2-4 are applicable to claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 13-15, and 18-20 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, ANDREW MOYER can be reached at (571)272-9523. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights