DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Amendment
This Office Action is made in response to amendment, filed 3/20/2026. Claims 16-20 are canceled and claims 21-25 are added. Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see “Remarks”, made in an Amendment”, filed 3/20/2026.
Responsive to the Restriction Requirement mailed 2/9/2026, Applicants has elected Group I with claims 1-15 for examination. Accordingly, claims 1-15 and 21-25 are pending.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Instant Application 18/916,396 independent claims 1, 13, 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claims 1, 12, 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,149,796 in combination with dependent claims (see table below). Instant Application 18/916,396 independent claims 1, 13, 21 are not patentably distinct from independent claims 1, 12, 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,149,796 because both sets of claims are directed to presenting content associated with an audio/video program based on user search information, including determining information related to a subject of the program from one or more searches and controlling the presentation of additional information (e.g., annotations or search results) with the audio video program.
Instant Application 18/916,396
Parent Pat 12,149,796
Not Patentably Distinct
Independent Claims 1, 21:
setting a degree of annotation for an audio/video program for a user;
determining a count of one or more searches performed regarding a subject of the audio/video program;
determining, based on the degree of annotation and the count of the one or more searches, whether to display an annotation for the subject with the audio/video program; and
in response to determining that the annotation for the subject is to be displayed:
generating the annotation based on the one or more searches; and
causing the annotation to be displayed with the audio/video program.
Independent Claim 13:
obtain one or more searches made by a first user for information regarding an audio/video program;
generate customized annotations for the audio/video program based on the one or more searches; and
cause the audio/video program with the customized annotations to be provided to a second user.
Dependent Claims:
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 8
Claim 9
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claim 12
Claim 14
Claim 15
Claim 22
Claim 23
Claim 24
Claim 25
Independent Claim 1:
outputting under control of a processor a video signal of program data configured to be presented to a display for viewing by a user;
obtaining previous searches by other users that correspond to the timestamp;
identifying a subject of the program data at the timestamp based on the previous searches by the other users;
presenting, to the user, a plurality of additional information items about the identified subject obtained by the first search;
conducting a first search in a first database of the identified subject;
conveying the selected results to the user.
Independent Claim 1:
obtaining previous searches by other users that correspond to the timestamp;
identifying a subject of the program data at the timestamp based on the previous searches by the other users;
conducting a first search in a first database of the identified subject;
presenting, to the user, a plurality of additional information items about the identified subject obtained by the first search;
conveying the selected results to the user.
Dependent Claims:
Claim 6
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claims 5, 6
Claim 9
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claim 1
Claim 6
Claim 1
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claims 5, 6
Claim 9
Analysis:
Both limitations relate to presenting video content to a user. The ‘degree of annotation’ controls presentation of information with the video, while the parent outputs the video itself. These are obvious variations of controlling presentation of content.
Both rely on user search data tied to video content. Counting searches versus retrieving searches represents an obvious variation of using search data.
Both use search-derived information to influence content handling. Display decision vs subject identification are obvious variations.
Both relate to presenting subject-related information to the user. Annotations vs additional info are obvious variants.
Both generate output based on search data. Annotation generation vs result retrieval are predictable variations.
Both present information to the user. Displaying annotations vs conveying results are obvious variations.
Both limitations rely on collecting search data associated with a video program. The instant claim obtains searches from a user, while the parent claim retrieves prior searches. These are obvious variations of using search history data.
Both limitations use search-derived information to generate content associated with the video program. Generating customized annotations (instant) versus identifying a subject and retrieving related information (parent) are obvious variations of using search data to create relevant content.
Both limitations relate to delivering content derived from search data to a user. Providing annotated video to another user versus presenting retrieved information are obvious variations of delivering search-informed content.
Search-derived content; annotation vs display is obvious
User input/control; same concept.
Timestamp linkage; equivalent use.
Frame vs timestamp; predictable variant.
Genre = category.
Multiple categories/genres; same concept.
Translation = additional info.
Conditional display; same logic.
Category-based control; same.
Category selection; same.
Timestamp + searches; same concept.
Both generate/display content from search-derived information; obvious variation.
Both relate to delivering content with video; implementation difference only.
Both rely on category-based control of content; same concept.
Both use multiple categories for selection/control; equivalent.
Both present additional information with video; type of info differs only.
Both conditionally control presentation timing; same logic.
U.S. Patent No. 12,149,796 does not explicitly disclose setting a degree of annotation for an audio/video program. However, the instant claims differ from the parent claims only in specifying that the presentation of additional information is controlled via a defined “degree of annotation,” which constitutes a variation in how and to what extent such information is presented with the audio/video program. For example, in analogous art, Petrov (US 10,747,948) discloses controlling presentation of information to a user based on user preferences and interaction parameters, including selectively displaying or suppressing information during playback (col.30 lines 54-58). Accordingly, specifying a degree of annotation to control presentation would have been an obvious design choice yielding the predictable result of controlling the extent and timing of additional information presented with the audio/video program.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsvetomir Petrov Petrov, Pat No US 10,747,948 (hereafter Petrov) and in view Oldham et al., Pub No US 2008/0249786 (hereafter Oldham).
Regarding Claim 1, Petrov discloses a method, comprising:
setting a degree of annotation for an audio/video program for a user [col.30 lines 54-58: Discloses receiving, from a second client device of a viewing user, a preference of the viewing user identifying a first time portion for displaying annotations during the playback of the video and a second time portion for hiding annotations during the playback of the video. The Applicant’s specification describes “degree of annotation” as controlling the extent to which annotations are presented, including whether annotations are displayed or not displayed for a subject. Petrov similarly teaches controlling the presentation of the annotations by specifying time portions during which annotations are displayed and time portions during which annotations are hidden (col.30 lines 54-58). Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the Applicant’s specification, Petrov teaches setting a degree of annotation.];
causing the annotation to be displayed with the audio/video program [col.30 lines 65-67: Discloses responsive to the request (causing) to view the video, transmitting the video with one or more of the plurality of annotations to client device. Thus, explicitly teaches causing the annotation to be displayed with the audio/video program during playback.].
determining whether to display an annotation with the audio/video program [col.30 lines 54-58: Discloses selectively displaying annotations and hiding annotations during playback, thereby necessarily determining whether to display an annotation at a given time.];
Petrov does not explicitly disclose determining a count of one or more searches performed regarding a subject of the audio/video program; determining, based on the degree of annotation and the count of the one or more searches, whether to display an annotation for the subject with the audio/video program; and in response to determining that the annotation for the subject is to be displayed: generating the annotation based on the one or more searches (emphasis added to distinguish the elements not taught by Petrov); However, in analogous art, Oldham discloses [para.0057 FIG.7] at stage 700, statistics associated with a first topic (a subject) can be retrieved. The statistics can be retrieved, for example, by a statistics collection engine (e.g., statistics collection and analysis engine 110 of FIG. 1). The retrieved statistics can include, for example, search queries, search results, time and date information associated with search queries, refinements of search queries occurring doting a search session, etc. Such data can be used to define topics, to identify popularity of a topic, to identify seasonal demand for a topic, etc.; and claim 1: Discloses a statistics collection engine operable to generate query statistics associated with one or more queries. Oldham’s “topic (a subject)” represents content of interest derived from user queries. When combined with Petrov’s video playback system, which represents video content to a user during playback, such topics correspond to subjects associated with the audio/video program being viewed, thereby yielding search counts regarding a subject of the audio/video program. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov with these features, as taught by Oldham in order to yield predictable result such as improving the relevance and usefulness of annotations presented with video content by basing display decisions on search-derived user interest data [Oldham: para.0003].
Regarding Claim 13, Petrov discloses a content receiver [col.5 lines 54-56, FIG.1: Discloses an asset hosting site that allows users to access video content via searching and/or browsing interfaces; col.6 lines 12-15: Discloses video content files received and shared by the asset hosting site.] comprising:
one or more processors [col.13 line 15-18: Discloses processor receives annotation data and generates one or more annotations for video content.]; and
one or more memories configured to store instructions executable by the one or more processors [col.18 lines 24-26: Discloses The memory that stores instructions and/or data that may be executed by the processor.] to:
generate customized annotations for the audio/video program [col.30 lines 65-67: Discloses generating and displaying annotations associated with video playback; and col.30 lines 54-58: Discloses user specific preferences controlling when are displayed or hidden during playback, thereby teaching customization of annotation presentation based on user-defined settings.]; and
cause the audio/video program with the customized annotations to be provided to a second user [col.31 lines 43-49: Discloses transmit the video with one or more of the plurality of annotations to the second client device for the playback of the video with the one or more of the plurality of annotations in accordance with the annotation data of the annotating user and the preference of the viewing user.].
Petrov does not explicitly disclose
obtain one or more searches made by a first user for information regarding an audio/video program; generate customized annotations for the audio/video program based on the one or more searches (emphasis added to distinguish the elements not taught by Petrov); However, in analogous art, Oldham discloses [para.0057] retrieving query statistics associated with one or more user queries, including search queries, search results, and time and date information associated with search queries, thus, obtaining one or more searches made by a first user. Oldham further discloses [para.0057] such query statistics can be used to define topics and identify popularity and user interest in a topic, thus, providing a basis for tailoring content, thereby teaching generating customized annotations based on one or more searches. When combined with Petrov’s video playback system, which represents video content to a user during playback, Oldham’s query-derived statistics corresponds to searches regarding the audio/video program, thereby yielding annotations customized based on user search activity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov with these features, as taught by Oldham in order to yield predictable result such as improving the relevance and usefulness of annotations presented with video content by basing them on user search data [Oldham: para.0003].
Regarding Claim 21, Petrov discloses a system, comprising:
one or more memories configured to store computer instructions [col.18 lines 24-26: Discloses memory that stores instructions.]; and
one or more processors configured to execute the computer instructions [col.18 lines 24-26: Discloses instructions and/or data is executed by the processor.] to:
set a degree of annotation for an audio/video program for a user [col.30 lines 54-58: Discloses receiving, from a second client device of a viewing user, a preference of the viewing user identifying a first time portion for displaying annotations during the playback of the video and a second time portion for hiding annotations during the playback of the video. The Applicant’s specification describes “degree of annotation” as controlling the extent to which annotations are presented, including whether annotations are displayed or not displayed for a subject. Petrov similarly teaches controlling the presentation of the annotations by specifying time portions during which annotations are displayed and time portions during which annotations are hidden (col.30 lines 54-58). Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the Applicant’s specification, Petrov teaches setting a degree of annotation.];
cause the annotation to be displayed with the audio/video program [col.30 lines 65-67: Discloses responsive to the request (causing) to view the video, transmitting the video with one or more of the plurality of annotations to client device. Thus, explicitly teaches causing the annotation to be displayed with the audio/video program during playback.].
Petrov does not explicitly disclose identify searches performed regarding a subject of the audio/video program; and in response to determining that an annotation for the subject is to be displayed based on the degree of annotation and the identified searches: generate the annotation based on the identified searches (emphasis added to distinguish the elements not taught by Petrov); However, in analogous art, Oldham discloses [para.0057 FIG.7] retrieving query statistics associated with one or more user queries, including search queries, search results, and time and date information associated with search queries, thus, identify searches performed by users. Oldham further discloses [para.0057] such query statistics can be used to define topics and identify user interest, thus, providing a basis for tailoring content, thereby teaching generating content (e.g., annotations) based on identified searches. When combined with Petrov’s video playback system, which represents video content to a user during playback, Oldham’s query-derived statistics corresponds to searches regarding a subject the audio/video program, thereby enabling generation of annotations based on such searches. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov with these features, as taught by Oldham in order to yield predictable result such as improving the relevance and usefulness of annotations presented with video content by basing display decisions on search-derived user interest data [Oldham: para.0003].such topics correspond to subjects associated with the audio/video program being viewed, thereby yielding search counts regarding a subject of the audio/video program. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov with these features, as taught by Oldham in order to yield predictable result such as improving the relevance and usefulness of annotations by basing them on user search data [Oldham: para.0003].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsvetomir Petrov Petrov, Pat No US 10,747,948 (hereafter Petrov) and in view Oldham et al., Pub No US 2008/0249786 (hereafter Oldham) and further in view Andrew Shirey, PUB No US 2014/0258472 (hereafter Shirey).
Regarding Claim 2, the combined teachings of Petrov and Oldham discloses the method of claim 1, and Oldham further discloses wherein generating the annotation based on the one or more searches [para.0057: Discloses retrieved statistics can include… search queries, search results… Thus, teaches obtaining (generating based on searches) search information corresponding to one or more searches.] comprises:
obtaining search information based on the one or more searches [para.0057: Discloses he retrieved statistics can include, for example, search queries, search results, time and date information associated with search queries. Thus, teaches obtaining search information (queries/results).]; and the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose generating the annotation based on the search information. However, in analogous art, Shirey discloses the video server retrieves associated topic information from the topic database... identifies… related content for each of the retrieved topics [para.0041]. Thus, Shirey teaches using retrieved information to identify and provide related content associated with video content, which corresponds to generating the annotation based on the retrieved information under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Oldham teaches retrieving search results associated with content [para.0057]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov and Oldham with generating the annotation based on the search information, as taught by Shirey in order to yield predictable results such as presenting related content associated with a portion of video content, thereby improving user engagement and content interaction [Shirey: para.0006].
Claims 3-9, 11, 14, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsvetomir Petrov Petrov, Pat No US 10,747,948 (hereafter Petrov) and in view Oldham et al., Pub No US 2008/0249786 (hereafter Oldham) and further in view Abecassis et al., PAT No US 9,609,395 (hereafter Abecassis).
Regarding Claim 3, the combined teachings of Petrov and Oldham discloses the method of claim 1, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein setting the degree of annotation comprises: receiving input from the user specifying the degree of annotation.
However, in analogous art, Abecassis discloses a display of subtitles may be responsive to a user pre-established preference with respect to specific sequences within a video and specific portions comprising dialogue that is deemed unclear (col.15 lines 40-45). User pre-established preferences determine what subtitle/supplemental information is displayed, corresponding to user-specified control over the degree of annotation under BRI. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov and Oldham with setting the degree of annotation comprises receiving input from the user specifying the degree of annotation, as taught by Abecassis in order to yield predictable results such as selectively controlling the amount and type of supplemental content presented to a user based on user preferences, thereby improving relevance and usability of displayed information (Abecassis: col.15 lines 40-45).
Regarding Claim 4, the combined teachings of Petrov and Oldham discloses the method of claim 1, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose further comprising: determining a timestamp of the audio/video program that corresponds to the one or more searches; and causing the annotation to be displayed with the audio/video program at the timestamp. However, in analogous art, Abecassis discloses obtaining current play position data … determining a current play position (col.2 lies 3-11). Thus, Abecassis teaches determining a playback position corresponding to a timestamp. Oldham teaches retrieving search results associated with content [para.0057], while Abecassis teaches determining a playback position (timestamp) of the content. Thus, the determined timestamp corresponds to the search-identified content (determining a timestamp of the audio/video program that corresponds to the one or more searches). Abecassis further discloses displaying information synchronized with the contemporaneously played video (col.2 lines 16-18). Thus, synchronized display teaches annotation at timestamp (causing the annotation to be displayed with the audio/video program at the timestamp). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov and Oldham with determining a timestamp of the audio/video program that corresponds to the one or more searches; and causing the annotation to be displayed with the audio/video program at the timestamp, as taught by Abecassis in order to yield predictable results such as synchronizing supplemental information with relevant portions of media content based on search results, thereby improving the accuracy, relevance, and usability of displayed annotations (Abecassis: col.2 lines 16-18).
Regarding Claim 5, the combined teachings of Petrov and Oldham discloses the method of claim 1, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose further comprising: determining a frame of the audio/video program that corresponds to the one or more searches; and causing the annotation to be displayed with the frame of the audio/video program. However, in analogous art, Abecassis discloses obtaining current play position data from a video being played and displaying information synchronized with the contemporaneously played video (col.2, lines 3-20). Oldham teaches retrieving search results associated with content, while Abecassis teaches determining a playback position of the audio/video program. Thus, the playback position corresponds to a frame of the audio/video program under BRI (determining a frame of the audio/video program that corresponds to the one or more searches). Abecassis further discloses displaying information synchronized with the contemporaneously played video (col.2 lines 16-18). Thus, synchronized display teaches annotation at timestamp (causing the annotation to be displayed with the audio/video program at the timestamp). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov and Oldham with determining a frame of the audio/video program that corresponds to the one or more searches; and causing the annotation to be displayed with the frame of the audio/video program, as taught by Abecassis in order to yield predictable results such as synchronizing supplemental information with specific frames or portions of media content identified based on search results, thereby improving the precision, relevance, and contextual presentation of displayed annotations (Abecassis: col.2, lines 3-20, col.2 lines 16-18).
Regarding Claim 6, the combined teachings of Petrov and Oldham discloses the method of claim 1, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein the degree of annotation is based on a genre of the audio/video program. However, in analogous art, Abecassis discloses presentation according to a user's content preferences specifying a level explicitness in each of a plurality of categories (col.35 lines 42-43). A genre corresponds to a category influencing the level of annotation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov and Oldham with the degree of annotation is based on a genre of the audio/video program, as taught by Abecassis in order to yield predictable results such as tailoring the amount and type of supplemental information presented to a user based on content categories or genres, thereby improving the relevance, appropriateness, and user customization of displayed annotations (Abecassis: col.35 lines 42-43).
Regarding Claim 7, the combined teachings of Petrov and Oldham discloses the method of claim 1, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein setting the degree of annotation for the audio/video program for the user comprises: setting a first degree of annotation for a first genre of audio/video program; and setting a second degree of annotation for a second genre of audio/video program. However, in analogous art, Abecassis discloses presentation according to a user’s content preferences specifying a level of explicitness in each of a plurality of categories (col.35, lines 42-43). A genre corresponds to a category influencing the level of annotation. Further, different categories correspond to different levels of explicitness, thereby teaching setting different degrees of annotation for different genres. Thus, Abecassis teaches assigning respective levels of explicitness to different categories, thereby corresponding to setting a first degree of annotation for a first genre and a second degree of annotation for a second genre. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov and Oldham with setting a first degree of annotation for a first genre of audio/video program; and setting a second degree of annotation for a second genre of audio/video program, as taught by Abecassis in order to yield predictable results such as tailoring different levels of supplemental information for different categories or genres of content, thereby improving the relevance, appropriateness, and user-specific customization of displayed annotations (Abecassis: col.35 lines 42-43).
Regarding Claim 8, the combined teachings of Petrov and Oldham discloses the method of claim 1, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose further comprising: determining that the subject of the audio/video program includes text of the audio/video program; and displaying a translation of the text with the audio/video program. However, in analogous art, Abecassis discloses providing subtitle information and supplementary information associated with a video, including text corresponding to the audio/video content, and displaying such information synchronized with the contemporaneously played video (col.2 lines 3-20, col.15-16). Subtitles correspond to text of the audio/video program. Further, Abecassis discloses providing supplementary information associated with the video, which under BRI encompasses alternative language versions of the text, thereby teaching displaying a translation of the text with the audio/video program. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov and Oldham with determining that the subject of the audio/video program includes text of the audio/video program; and displaying a translation of the text with the audio/video program, as taught by Abecassis in order to yield predictable results such as providing translated textual information synchronized with media content, thereby improving accessibility, user comprehension, and usability for user for users of different language preferences (Abecassis: col.2, lines 3-20).
Regarding Claim 9, the combined teachings of Petrov and Oldham discloses the method of claim 1, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein determining, based on the degree of annotation and the count of the one or more searches, whether to display the annotation for the subject with the audio/video program comprises: determining, when the degree of annotation is low, not to display the annotation for the subject; and determining, when the degree of annotation is high, to display the annotation for the subject. However, in analogous art, Abecassis discloses presentation of supplementary information according to a user’s content preferences specifying a level of explicitness (col.5 lines 24-30), and further discloses that such preferences include selectable levels (e.g., None, Mild, Explicit, Graphic) that control the inclusion or exclusion of content for display (col.12 lines 24-40). Thus, Abecassis teaches controlling whether information is displayed or suppressed based on a defined level setting. A lower level of explicitness corresponds to exclusion or suppression of content, while a higher level corresponds to inclusion and display of content. Accordingly, Oldham teaches retrieving search results associated with content [para.0057], while Abecassis teaches determining whether to display supplemental information based on a level setting, corresponding to determining, based on the level setting, whether to display or not display the annotation. When it is determined the degree of annotation is low, don’t display the annotation, and when the degree of annotation is high, display the annotation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov and Oldham with determining, based on the degree of annotation and the count of the one or more searches, whether to display the annotation for the subject with the audio/video program comprises: determining, when the degree of annotation is low, not to display the annotation for the subject; and determining, when the degree of annotation is high, to display the annotation for the subject, as taught by Abecassis in order to yield predictable results such as controlling presentation of supplemental information based on defined content levels, thereby improving relevance and avoiding unnecessary or excessive information display (Abecassis: col.5 lines 24-30, col.12 lines 24-40).
Regarding Claim 11, the combined teachings of Petrov and Oldham discloses the method of claim 1, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein setting the degree of annotation for the audio/video program for the user comprises: setting a degree of annotation for each of a plurality of categories of audio/video program; and selecting the degree of annotation for the audio/video program based on a category of the audio/video program. However, in analogous art, Abecassis discloses presentation of supplementary information according to a user’s content preferences specifying preferences for each of a plurality of content categories (e.g., Who, Shopping, Music, Locations, Filmmaking, Plot Info, and Dilemma) associated with video content (col. 12 lines 20-36). Abecassis additionally discloses selectable levels of explicitness (e.g., None, Mild, Explicit, Graphic)) that define the degree of content to be presented (col.12 lines 34-36). Thus, Abecassis teaches setting a degree of content presentation for each of a plurality of categories and selecting the degree of content presentation based on the category. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov and Oldham with setting the degree of annotation for the audio/video program for the user comprises: setting a degree of annotation for each of a plurality of categories of audio/video program; and selecting the degree of annotation for the audio/video program based on a category of the audio/video program, as taught by Abecassis in order to yield predictable results such as customizing presentation of supplemental information according to category-specific user preferences, thereby improving relevance and user control over displayed information (Abecassis: col. 12 lines 20-36, col.12 lines 34-36).
Regarding Claim 14, the combined teachings of Petrov and Oldham discloses the content receiver of claim 13, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more searches correspond to one or more timestamps of the audio/video program, and wherein the one or more processors cause the audio/video program with the customized annotations to be provided to the second user by being further configured to: insert the customized annotations into the content program at the corresponding one or more timestamps. However, in analogous art, Abecassis discloses determining a current play position of a video and obtaining position data corresponding to playback of the video (col.2 lines 8-11: “determining a current play position…”), and displaying supplementary information synchronized with the contemporaneously played video (col.2 lines 16-19: “displaying information on the second screen device synchronized…”). Abecassis further discloses presenting information at a preestablished play position (col.16 lines 1-11: “the subtitle is displayed at a preestablished play position…”), which corresponds to a timestamp of the audio/video program under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The synchronizing presentation of supplementary information with video playback reasonably corresponds to providing annotations in association with the content at specific playback positions, which at least suggests inserting annotations into the current program at corresponding timestamps under BRI. Oldham teaches retrieving search results associated with content [para.0057]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov and Oldham with this feature, as taught by Abecassis in order to yield predictable results such as synchronizing supplemental information with video playback for accurate temporal presentation (Abecassis: col.16, lines 1-10).
Regarding Claim 22, the combined teachings of Petrov and Oldham discloses the system of claim 21, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to further execute the computer instructions to: receive input from the user specifying the degree of annotation. However, in analogous art, Abecassis discloses user preferences specifying a level of explicitness (col.5 lines 28-31: “The term "content preferences" shall mean preferences for the form of expression, explicitness, inclusion or exclusion of objectionable content, a level of explicitness in each of a plurality of content categories…”), which corresponds to user input defining the degree of content presentation because the disclosed level of explicitness represents a user-defined setting that determines the degree to which content is annotated or filtered are specified by the user and control how content is presented to the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov and Oldham with receive input from the user specifying the degree of annotation, as taught by Abecassis in order to yield predictable results such as enabling user control over displayed information (Abecassis: col.5 lines 28-31).
Regarding Claim 23, the combined teachings of Petrov and Oldham discloses the system of claim 21, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors cause the annotation to be displayed with the audio/video program by being configured to further execute the computer instructions to: determine a timestamp of the audio/video program associated with the identified searches; and cause the annotation to be displayed with the audio/video program at the timestamp. However, in analogous art, Abecassis discloses determining a current play position and synchronizing supplementary information with video playback (col.2 lines 6-12, col.2 lines 15-18), including displaying information at specific playback positions (col.16, lines 1-10), which corresponds to determining a timestamp and displaying information at that timestamp. Oldham discloses retrieving query statistics associated with one or more user queries, including search queries, search results, and associated time and date information [para.0057], thereby teaching identifying searches performed by users. Oldham further teaches utilizing such query information to tailor content based on user interest, which corresponds to generating annotations based on the identified searches. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov and Oldham with these features, as taught by Abecassis in order to yield predictable results such as improving the temporal relevance and usefulness of annotations presented with the audio/video program (Abecassis: col.5 lines 28-31).
Regarding Claim 24, the combined teachings of Petrov and Oldham discloses the system of claim 21, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors cause the annotation to be displayed with the audio/video program by being configured to further execute the computer instructions to: determine a frame of the audio/video program associated with the identified searches; and cause the annotation to be displayed relative to the frame of the audio/video program. However, in analogous art, Abecassis discloses synchronization of supplementary information with specific positions in video playback (col.2 lines 6-12, col.16, lines 1-10), wherein such playback positions correspond to particular frames or portions of the video. Thus, displaying information synchronized to a playback position reasonably corresponds to displaying the annotation relative to frame of the audio/video program under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov and Oldham with determine a frame of the audio/video program associated with the identified searches; and cause the annotation to be displayed relative to the frame of the audio/video program, as taught by Abecassis in order to yield predictable results such as precise alignment of information with video content (Abecassis: col.2 lines 6-12, col.16, lines 1-10).
Regarding Claim 25, the combined teachings of Petrov and Oldham discloses the system of claim 21, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to further execute the computer instructions to:
determine, when the degree of annotation is low, not to display the annotation for the subject; and determine, when the degree of annotation is high, to display the annotation for the subject. However, in analogous art, Abecassis discloses levels of explicitness controlling inclusion or exclusion of content (col.5 lines 24-30: “The term "content preferences" shall mean preferences for the form of expression, explicitness, inclusion or exclusion of objectionable content…”, col.12 lines 34-34: “… levels of explicitness None, Mild, Explicit, and Graphic). Lower levels of explicitness (e.g., None or Mild) correspond to exclusion of content, while higher levels of explicitness (e.g., Explicit or Graphic) correspond to inclusion of content, which reasonably maps to not displaying and displaying the annotation, respectively, under a broadest reasonable interpretation. As shown in FIG.2, Abecassis, further discloses selectable user interface controls corresponding to levels of explicitness (e.g., None, Mild, Explicit, Graphic), where user selection of one of these options requires the system to determine the selected level and apply corresponding inclusion or exclusion of content. Thus, the system determines whether the degree of annotation is low or high based on the selected level and correspondingly determines whether to display or not display the annotation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov and Oldham with determine, when the degree of annotation is low, not to display the annotation for the subject; and determine, when the degree of annotation is high, to display the annotation for the subject, as taught by Abecassis in order to yield predictable results such as selectively presenting or suppressing information based on user-defined levels (Abecassis: col.12 lines 34-34).
Claims 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsvetomir Petrov Petrov, Pat No US 10,747,948 (hereafter Petrov) and in view Oldham et al., Pub No US 2008/0249786 (hereafter Oldham) and further in view Abecassis et al., PAT No US 9,609,395 (hereafter Abecassis) and further in view Andrew Shirey, PUB No US 2014/0258472 (hereafter Shirey).
Regarding Claim 10, the combined teachings of Petrov and Oldham discloses the method of claim 1, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein setting the degree of annotation for the audio/video program for the user comprises: setting a degree of annotation for a category of audio/video program; However, in analogous art, Abecassis discloses presentation of supplementary information according to a user’s content preferences specifying preferences for each of a plurality of content categories (e.g., Who, Shopping, Music, Locations, Filmmaking, Plot Info, and Dilemma) associated with video content (col. 12 lines 20-36). Abecassis additionally discloses selectable levels of explicitness (e.g., None, Mild, Explicit, Graphic)) that define the degree of content to be presented (col.12 lines 34-36). Thus, Abecassis teaches setting a degree of content presentation for each of a plurality of categories and selecting the degree of content presentation based on the category. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov and Oldham with setting a degree of annotation for a category of audio/video program, as taught by Abecassis in order to yield predictable results such as customizing presentation of supplemental information according to category-specific user preferences, thereby improving relevance and user control over displayed information (Abecassis: col. 12 lines 20-36, col.12 lines 34-36).
the combined teachings of Petrov, Oldham and Abecassis do not explicitly disclose receiving an audio/video program of the category. However, in analogous art, Shirey discloses receiving a video request (FIG.6, step 602, para.0041) and retrieving associated topic information (FIG.6, step 604, para.0041), which identifies a category associated with the requested video, wherein the requested video corresponds to an audio/video program, and the retrieved topic information identifies a category associated with the audio/video program. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov, Oldham and Abecassis with receiving an audio/video program of the category, as taught by Shirey in order to yield predictable results such as tailoring content presentation based on category-specific preferences [Shirey: para.0041].
Regarding Claim 12, the combined teachings of Petrov and Oldham discloses the method of claim 1, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein determining the count of the one or more searches performed regarding the subject of the audio/video program comprises: obtaining a timestamp of the audio/video program; However, in analogous art, Abecassis discloses obtaining current play position data … determining a current play position (col.2 lies 3-11). Thus, Abecassis teaches determining a playback position corresponding to a timestamp. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov and Oldham with obtaining a timestamp of the audio/video program, as taught by Abecassis in order to yield predictable results such as synchronizing supplemental information with relevant portions of media content based on search results, thereby improving the accuracy, relevance, and usability of displayed annotations (Abecassis: col.2 lines 16-18).
the combined teachings of Petrov, Oldham and Abecassis do not explicitly disclose accessing the one or more searches regarding the subject of the audio/video program that correspond to the timestamp. However, in analogous art, Shirey discloses monitoring a video playback location of the video as the video plays on the client computer; determining a topic associated with a current video playback location of the video [claim 1, para.0018]. And further discloses retrieving topic information associated with portions of the video [para(s).0031, 0041]. These teachings correspond to accessing information (e.g., search/topics) associated with a specific playback position (timestamp). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov, Oldham and Abecassis with accessing the one or more searches regarding the subject of the audio/video program that correspond to the timestamp, as taught by Shirey in order to yield predictable results such as aligning retrieved information with playback position [Shirey: para(s).0018, 0031, 0041].
Regarding Claim 15, the combined teachings of Petrov and Oldham discloses the content receiver of claim 13, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine an interest of the second user based on user data associated with the second user; However, in analogous art, Abecassis discloses user preference based on user data (col.15 lines 40-45), which corresponds to determining a user’s interest based on user-associated data. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “second user” reads on any user distinct from another user, and Abecassis’ s disclosure of determining preferences for a user based on that user’s data reasonably teaches determining an interest of the second user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov and Oldham with determine an interest of the second user based on user data associated with the second user, as taught by Abecassis in order to yield predictable results such as personalizing content based on user preference (Abecassis: col.15 lines 40-45).
the combined teachings of Petrov, Oldham and Abecassis do not explicitly disclose select a search of the one or more searches based on the interest of the second user; and generate customized annotation for the audio/video program based on the selected search. However, in analogous art, Shirey discloses identifies related content associated with the topic, and the related content information is transmitted to the client computer allowing the client to access the associated content [para.0018]. Shirey further discloses retrieving topic information and associated content for display with a video [para(s).0031, 0041]. These teachings correspond to selecting content (searches) based on user-relevant context (topics) and generating/displaying associated information (annotations) based on that selection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Petrov, Oldham and Abecassis with select a search of the one or more searches based on the interest of the second user; and generate customized annotation for the audio/video program based on the selected search, as taught by Shirey in order to yield predictable results such as personalized content annotations [Shirey: para(s).0031, 0041].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Datar et al., (US 2008/0154908) – Discloses filtering a set of available annotations. The metadata sent to an annotation server for video acquired from broadcast television or cable can include a description of the time and channel at which the video was acquired. The annotation server can use this time and channel information to determine the appropriate video and retrieve annotations associated with that video. [para.0066].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL OCAK whose telephone number is (571) 272-2774. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ADIL OCAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights