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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra (2017/0264951) and Crockett (2004/0165730) in view of Fonseca (2018/0189276).
As for claims 1, 11, and 18, Mitra discloses: an automated process executable on a client device to playback media content, the automated process comprising:
receiving, by the client device, the media content for playback (Receive media content; 304 - fig.3, [0035], [0041]);
generating, by the client device, a first signature of the media content at a playback time, the first signature comprising a first set of frequency-amplitude pairs associated with the media content (The first processing unit generates one or more prominent frequencies and one or more prominent amplitudes from the extracted first set of audio fingerprints. Fig. 3; [0087], [0105], [0118], [0119]),
transmitting, by a client device and to a server (advertisement detection system 106), the first signature, wherein the server is configured to detect that the media content includes a known content in response to the first signature matching a stored signature of the known content ([0021], [0083], [0101]); and
However, Mitra fails to disclose:
wherein the client device applies a window function to generate tapered amplitudes,
wherein the client device applies a discrete Fourier transform (DFT) to the tapered amplitudes to generate outputs for frequency bins, and wherein the client device selects dominant output magnitudes from the outputs to generate the first set of frequency-amplitude pairs;
receiving, by the client device and from the server, replacement content in response to the server detecting that the media content includes the known content;
playing, by the client device, the media content including the replacement content at the playback time.
In an analogous art, Crockett discloses:
wherein the client device applies a window function to generate tapered amplitudes ([0047], [0048]),
wherein the client device applies a discrete Fourier transform (DFT) to the tapered amplitudes to generate outputs for frequency bins, and wherein the client device selects dominant output magnitudes from the outputs to generate the first set of frequency-amplitude pairs (fig. 5; [0012], [0016], [0036], [0037], [0052]-[0057]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitra’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Crockett, for the advantage of providing an efficient process of generating segments to create effective signatures.
However, Mitra and Crockett fail to disclose:
receiving, by the client device and from the server, replacement content in response to the server detecting that the media content includes the known content;
playing, by the client device, the media content including the replacement content at the playback time.
In an analogous art, Fonseca discloses:
receiving, by the client device and from the server, replacement content in response to the server detecting that the media content includes the known content (Determines placement of ads to perform automatic replacement of ads. [0014], [0044]);
playing, by the client device, the media content including the replacement content at the playback time (While playing the media content, ad is replaced with alternate ad; [0014], [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitra and Crockett’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Fonseca, for the advantage of automating the process of updating the database with new advertisements.
Claim(s) 2-4, 12-13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra, Crockett, and Fonseca in view of Topchy (2008/0215315).
As for claims 2, 12, and 19, Mitra, Crockett, and Fonseca fail to disclose discloses scaling, by the client device and proportionally, input amplitudes of an audio component of the media content into integers.
In an analogous art, Topchy discloses scaling, by the client device and proportionally, input amplitudes of an audio component of the media content into integers ([0043]-[0044], [0080]; input audio converted to integer value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitra, Crockett, and Fonseca’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Topchy, for the advantage of improved computational efficiency.
As for claims 3, Topchy discloses wherein the integers comprise 16-bit integers ([0044], [0080])
As for claims 4, 13, and 20, Crockett discloses wherein the client device applies a window function to scaled amplitudes using a trigonometric lookup table to generate the tapered amplitudes (“M-point Hanning, Kaiser-Bessel”: [0047]).
Claim(s) 5-7, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra, Crockett, and Fonseca in view of Lee (2022/0368441).
As for claims 5, Mitra, Crockett, and Fonseca fail to disclose wherein the first signature matches the stored signature in response to the first set of frequency-magnitude pairs being the same as the stored set of frequency-magnitude pairs over a predetermined duration.
In an analogous art, Lee discloses the first signature matches the stored signature in response to the first set of frequency-magnitude pairs being the same as the stored set of frequency-magnitude pairs over a predetermined duration ([0060]-[0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitra, Crockett, and Fonseca’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Lee, for the advantage of accurately crediting viewership of the media.
As for claims 6, Lee discloses wherein the predetermined duration is between three seconds and five seconds ([0066]).
As for claims 7 and 14, Mitra, Crockett, and Fonseca fail to disclose wherein the first signature comprises the first set of frequency-magnitude pairs associated with a first window of the media content and a second set of frequency-magnitude pairs associated with a second window of the media content.
In an analogous art, Lee discloses wherein the first signature comprises the first set of frequency-magnitude pairs associated with a first window of the first piece of content and a third set of frequency-magnitude pairs associated with a second window of the first piece of content ([0060]-[0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitra, Crockett, and Fonseca’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Lee, for the advantage of continuously crediting viewership of media.
Claim(s) 8-9, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra, Crockett, Fonseca and Lee as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Srinivasan (2017/0048566).
As for claims 8 and 15, Mitra, Fonseca, Crockett, and Lee fail to disclose wherein a duration of the first window is in a range from 50 milliseconds to 150 milliseconds.
In an analogous art, Srinivasan discloses wherein the first window and the second window have a duration in a range from 50 milliseconds to 150 milliseconds ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitra, Fonseca, Crockett, and Lee’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Srinivasan, for the advantage of supporting finer signature matching granularity, thereby enabling monitoring more accurately.
As for claims 9 and 16, Srinivisan discloses wherein the first window and the second window overlap ([0026]-[0027]).
Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra, Fonseca, Crockett, and Lee as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sangwan (WO 2022/124679; Examiner note: See attached English equivalent IN 202041053179A).
As for claims 10 and 17, Mitra, Fonseca, Crockett, and Lee fail to disclose wherein the first set of frequency-magnitude pairs comprises five frequency-magnitude pairs selected in response to having dominant magnitudes in the first window.
In an analogous art, Sangwan discloses the first set of frequency-magnitude pairs comprises five frequency-magnitude pairs selected in response to having dominant magnitudes in the first window (See attached English equivalent IN 202041053179A: [0046], [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitra, Fonseca, Crockett, and Lee’s invention to include the abovementioned limitation, as taught by Sangwan, for the advantage of analyzing significant information portions of content, thereby obtaining accurate results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8567. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-3:00 PM.
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, NATHAN FLYNN can be reached at (571)272-1915. 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.
SUMAIYA A. CHOWDHURY
Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/SUMAIYA A CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421