DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 10/25/2023 (domestic benefit). Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The use of the term BLUETOOTH™, WI-FI™, ZIGBEE™, Z-WAVE™, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, the limitation(s) of “receiving, from an automated content recognition service, an identification of a video segment, wherein the video segment is being displayed by a display device,” “transmitting, based on the identification of the video segment, a notification to the display device, the notification including information associated with the video segment and a request for audio input,” “detecting one or more audio segments associated with the notification,” and “facilitating, in response to detecting the one or more audio segments, a presentation of an object associated with the video segment,” as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors,” “a non-transitory computer-readable medium,” and “a display device,” and specifically for claims 8 and 15, nothing in the claim’s elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. More specifically, but not including the generic computer components, the mental processes of a human observing a displayed video, recognizing what is being shown, prompting another person for spoken input regarding the video, listening to the spoken responses, and based on that response, presenting an object associated with the video. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, only claim 8 and 15 recite three additional elements — one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, and a display device.
The one or more processors are recited with a high-level of generality (see [0087], where the processor 504 can include any general-purpose processor and one or more hardware or software services, such as service 512 stored in storage device 510, configured to control the processor 504 as well as a special-purpose processor where software instructions are incorporated into the actual processor design. The processor 504 can be a completely self-contained computing system, containing multiple cores or processors, connectors (e.g., buses), memory, memory controllers, caches, etc. In some embodiments, such a self-contained computing system with multiple cores is symmetric. In some embodiments, such a self-contained computing system with multiple cores is asymmetric. In some embodiments, the processor 504 can be a microprocessor, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor (“DSP”), or a combination of these and/or other types of processors. In some embodiments, the processor 504 can include multiple elements such as a core, one or more registers, and one or more processing units such as an arithmetic logic unit (ALU), a floating-point unit (FPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a physics processing unit (PPU), a digital system processing (DSP) unit, or combinations of these and/or other such processing units).
Furthermore, the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions is recited with a high-level of generality (see [0128], where the term “machine-readable media” and equivalent terms “machine-readable storage media,” “computer-readable media,” and “computer-readable storage media” refer to media that includes, but is not limited to, portable or non-portable storage devices, optical storage devices, removable or non-removable storage devices, and various other mediums capable of storing, containing, or carrying instruction(s) and/or data. A computer-readable medium may include a non-transitory medium in which data can be stored and that does not include carrier waves and/or transitory electronic signals propagating wirelessly or over wired connections. Examples of a non-transitory medium may include, but are not limited to, a magnetic disk or tape, optical storage media such as compact disk (CD) or digital versatile disk (DVD), solid state drives (SSD), flash memory, memory or memory devices).
Likewise, the display device is recited with a high-level of generality (see [0080], where The display device may be a component of the media device (e.g., the component that displays the video component of the segment). Alternatively, the display device may be a device connected to the media device (e.g., via a High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) cable, a DisplayPort cable, a network connection, etc.).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and concerning claim 8 and 15 alone, the additional elements of using one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, and a display device to perform the receiving, transmitting, detecting, and facilitating steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16, the claim(s) recite(s) “facilitating the presentation of the object associated with the video segment includes displaying the object by the display device,” which reads on a human presenting the associated object by displaying or showing it to another person. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17, the claim(s) recite(s) “facilitating the presentation of the object associated with the video segment includes executing an application by the display device, the application being configured to display a new video segment associated with the video segment,” which reads on a human selecting related content associated with the original video to present another related video. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18, the claim(s) recite(s) “transmitting the one or more audio segments to a natural language processor configured to identify an intent corresponding to at least one of the one or more audio segments, wherein facilitating the presentation of the object associated with the video segment is further in response to identifying the intent,” which reads on a human listening to spoken words, determining the speaker’s intent from those words, and presenting an associated object based on the identified intent. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19, the claim(s) recite(s) “wherein the one or more audio segments are detected within a predetermined time interval, wherein the time interval begins upon receiving the identification of the video segment,” which reads on a human listening for a spoken response within a predetermined time frame or period after recognizing the displayed video. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 6, and 13, the claim(s) recite(s) “wherein the notification is displayed adjacent to the video segment,” which reads on a human displaying or placing a notification adjacent to the displayed video, such as writing a question based on the displayed content on a sticky note and placing it next to the video. No additional limitations are present.
With respect to claims 7, 14, and 20, the claim(s) recite(s) “wherein the one or more audio segments are received from a microphone embedded within the display device,” which reads on a human receiving spoken words from another person speaking through a microphone or other speaking device. This additional limitation merely recites a generic microphone used for its ordinary purpose of receiving audio input and gathering data. The specification describes the microphone generically and does not attribute any technological improvement to it (see Spec. ¶ [0016]). Therefore, the limitation does not impose any meaningful limit on the recited mental process. Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burbank (US 10972799 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Burbank teaches a method comprising:
receiving, from an automated content recognition service, an identification of a video segment, wherein the video segment is being displayed by a display device (see column 7, lines 14-19, where the media presentation device could do this through use of one or more forms of automated content recognition (ACR) technology. Further, the media presentation device could do this by itself and/or through interaction with one or more servers, such as content-identification server 22 for instance. Also see column 15, lines 13-29, where content identification could be used as a basis to dynamically provision the media presentation device with relevant reference data for the media content that the media presentation device is presenting. For example, if the media presentation device is presenting a linear content feed and periodically providing digital fingerprints to the content-identification server, the content-identification server could use fingerprint matching to identify the media feed being presented. And upon so identifying the media feed being presented, the content-identification server could then transmit to the media presentation device a set of reference data having reference fingerprints for an upcoming portion of the linear feed. That way, the media presentation device could then compare its generated digital fingerprints with that set of reference fingerprints moving forward. Further, this process could repeat for subsequent time segments of the linear feed);
transmitting, based on the identification of the video segment, a notification to the display device, the notification including information associated with the video segment and a request for audio input (see column 19, lines 14-26, where when the media presentation device is operating with its listening mode enabled, the media presentation device could be configured to present a notification related to its listening mode. For instance, if the media content comprises video content such as television content or the like, the media presentation device could generate and present as a graphical overlay superimposed over the video content a message such as “If you′d like to purchase this item at RETAILER 1, say ‘BUY AT RETAILER 1’ now.” Further, where various options exist, such as when a choice of product/service or retailer exists, the media presentation device could similarly present those options);
detecting one or more audio segments associated with the notification (see column 6, lines 61-67, and column 7, lines 1-5, where each voice command could be associated with one or more action identifiers (e.g., code or other data), each defining an action that the media presentation device should take in relation to purchase of the associated product or service upon detecting utterance of the voice command. For instance, representative actions could be “BUY” (e.g., to process purchase of the product or service) or “ADD TO CART” (e.g., to add the product or service to an online shopping cart), among other possibilities. In an example implementation, each such action identifier could be defined by a codeword that maps to program logic for carrying out the action); and
facilitating, in response to detecting the one or more audio segments, a presentation of an object associated with the video segment (see column 19, lines 28-35, where the media presentation device could also present information confirming that an action has been performed. For instance, if the media presentation device has added an item to the user's shopping cart, the media presentation device could present a notification indicating so. Or if the media presentation device has completed a purchase transaction, the media presentation device could present a notification indicating so. Also see column 19, lines 36-42, where the media presentation device could log a record of the performed action, perhaps along with other potentially relevant information, such as user activity at or near the time of the action. This information could then be further analyzed and used to guide decisions regarding future advertisement campaigns, voice-command associations, configurations, and the like).
Regarding claim 2, Burbank teaches wherein facilitating the presentation of the object associated with the video segment includes displaying the object by the display device (see column 1, lines 12-23, where a typical media presentation device operates to receive and/or generate an analog or digital media stream representing media content such as video and/or audio content and to output the media content for presentation (i.e., to present the media content) on a user interface such as a display screen and/or an audio speaker. Examples of such devices include televisions, computer monitors, projection systems, loudspeakers, headphones, set-top boxes (e.g. cable or satellite TV receivers), digital video recorders, radios, personal computers, mobile communication devices, gaming consoles, and streaming media players, among others. Also see column 2, lines 37-42, where the media presentation device could respond to utterance of such a voice command by presenting the user with information about the associated good or service, prompting the user for associated input, logging the transaction, and/or presenting confirmation or other information related to the action. Also see column 19, lines 28-35, where the media presentation device could also present information confirming that an action has been performed. For instance, if the media presentation device has added an item to the user's shopping cart, the media presentation device could present a notification indicating so. Or if the media presentation device has completed a purchase transaction, the media presentation device could present a notification indicating so).
Regarding claim 3, Burbank teaches wherein facilitating the presentation of the object associated with the video segment includes executing an application by the display device, the application being configured to display a new video segment associated with the video segment (see column 12, lines 35-49, where a variation where the media content segment includes or is related with multiple different products and/or services, such as PRODUCT 1, PRODUCT 2, and PRODUCT 3. In that case, case, the reference data might associate the reference fingerprint with the “BUY” (or “BUY AT . . .”) voice commands and with subsidiary voice commands “PRODUCT 1”, “PRODUCT 2”, and “PRODUCT 3”. The media presentation device could then listen for utterance of the voice command “BUY”, and upon detecting utterance of that voice command could then present to the user an audio or video prompt for the user to select from the list of products by speaking the product name. Upon detecting user utterance of one of the products, the media presentation device could then take action to process a user purchase of that product).
Regarding claim 5, Burbank teaches wherein the one or more audio segments are detected within a predetermined time interval, wherein the time interval begins upon receiving the identification of the video segment (see column 13, lines 63-67 and column 14, lines 1-5, where the reference data could further specify for a given reference fingerprint a time offset or other timing information that indicates when the media content segment will begin in a continued stream of media content, and the content-identification server could provide this timing information in its response to the media presentation device. Thus, the media presentation device could use this timing information as a basis to determine when to begin listening for utterance of the one or more indicated voice commands).
Regarding claim 6, Burbank teaches wherein the notification is displayed adjacent to the video segment (see column 19, lines 14-27, where when the media presentation device is operating with its listening mode enabled, the media presentation device could be configured to present a notification related to its listening mode. For instance, if the media content comprises video content such as television content or the like, the media presentation device could generate and present as a graphical overlay superimposed over the video content a message such as “If you′d like to purchase this item at RETAILER 1, say ‘BUY AT RETAILER 1’ now.” Further, where various options exist, such as when a choice of product/service or retailer exists, the media presentation device could similarly present those options).
Regarding claim 7, Burbank teaches wherein the one or more audio segments are received from a microphone embedded within the display device (see column 9, lines 61-67 and column 10, lines 1-3, where the media presentation device could receive audio input representing user speech, perhaps through a microphone associated with the media presentation device. Such a microphone could be provided in various locations and could take various forms. For instance, the microphone could be embedded or otherwise integrated in the media presentation device itself and could be a far-field type microphone. Alternatively, the microphone could be embedded or otherwise integrated in remote control 18 and could be a near-field microphone).
Regarding claim 8, Burbank teaches a system comprising:
one or more processors (see column 5, lines 20-23, where processing unit 30 could then comprise one or more general purpose processors (e.g., microprocessors) and/or one or more specialized processors (e.g., digital signal processors and/or application specific integrated circuits)); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (see column 5, lines 24-34, where non-transitory data storage 32 could comprise one or more volatile, non-volatile, removable, and/or non-removable storage components, such as magnetic, optical, or flash storage, and/or can be integrated in whole or in part with processing unit 30. And data storage 32 could have stored thereon (e.g., encoded thereon or otherwise embodying) various data, including without limitation program instructions (e.g., compiled or non-compiled program logic and/or machine code) 36 that, when executed by processing unit 30, could cause the media presentation device to perform one or more operations).
The remainder of claim 8 is rejected as unpatentable over the same prior art and reasoning applied against claim 1. As detailed in the rejection of claim 1, the disclosed method teaches each step of the system recited in claim 8. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, which recites a system, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same prior art and reasoning applied against claim 2. As detailed in the rejection of claim 2, the disclosed method teaches each step of the system recited in claim 9. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, which recites a system, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same prior art and reasoning applied against claim 3. As detailed in the rejection of claim 3, the disclosed method teaches each step of the system recited in claim 10. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, which recites a system, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same prior art and reasoning applied against claim 5. As detailed in the rejection of claim 5, the disclosed method teaches each step of the system recited in claim 12. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, which recites a system, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same prior art and reasoning applied against claim 6. As detailed in the rejection of claim 6, the disclosed method teaches each step of the system recited in claim 13. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, which recites a system, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same prior art and reasoning applied against claim 7. As detailed in the rejection of claim 7, the disclosed method teaches each step of the system recited in claim 14. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Burbank teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (see column 5, lines 24-34, where non-transitory data storage 32 could comprise one or more volatile, non-volatile, removable, and/or non-removable storage components, such as magnetic, optical, or flash storage, and/or can be integrated in whole or in part with processing unit 30. And data storage 32 could have stored thereon (e.g., encoded thereon or otherwise embodying) various data, including without limitation program instructions (e.g., compiled or non-compiled program logic and/or machine code) 36 that, when executed by processing unit 30, could cause the media presentation device to perform one or more operations).
The remainder of claim 15 is rejected as unpatentable over the same prior art and reasoning applied against claim 1. As detailed in the rejection of claim 1, the disclosed method teaches each step of the non-transitory computer-readable medium recited in claim 15. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, which recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same prior art and reasoning applied against claim 2. As detailed in the rejection of claim 2, the disclosed method teaches each step of the non-transitory computer-readable medium recited in claim 16. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, which recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same prior art and reasoning applied against claim 3. As detailed in the rejection of claim 3, the disclosed method teaches each step of the non-transitory computer-readable medium recited in claim 16. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, which recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same prior art and reasoning applied against claim 5. As detailed in the rejection of claim 5, the disclosed method teaches each step of the non-transitory computer-readable medium recited in claim 19. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, which recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same prior art and reasoning applied against claim 7. As detailed in the rejection of claim 7, the disclosed method teaches each step of the non-transitory computer-readable medium recited in claim 20. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burbank (US 10972799 B2) in view of Heo (US 20200168215 A1).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Burbank teaches all of the limitations in claim 1, but Burbank fails to teach transmitting the one or more audio segments to a natural language processor configured to identify an intent corresponding to at least one of the one or more audio segments, wherein facilitating the presentation of the object associated with the video segment is further in response to identifying the intent.
However, Heo does teach transmitting the one or more audio segments to a natural language processor configured to identify an intent corresponding to at least one of the one or more audio segments, wherein facilitating the presentation of the object associated with the video segment is further in response to identifying the intent (see [0320], where the NLP cloud server 2320 in accordance with the present scheme determines a user's intent using the speech-based command and the identification information about the currently-executed application. Then, the server 2320 transmits the determination result to the NLP module in S2303. For example, when the currently-executed application is associated with a home shopping or the like, it is determined according to the present invention that the user's intention is not to receive additional information about the corresponding hat, but to receive URL information where the corresponding hat is purchased).
Burbank and Heo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of pictorial communication (e.g. television) and speech recognition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Burbank to incorporate the teachings of Heo to determine the user’s intent using a natural language processor and their voice-command in order to responsively tailor the presented object based on the user’s needs (see [0007], where one embodiment (first embodiment) of the present invention is to precisely detect a user's intention, with taking into account a time and ambient environment at which the user utters any speech, and thus to provide different speech recognition services for the same speech based on the intention).
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 8 and recites a system, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same combination of prior art applied against claim 4 (i.e., Burbank in view of Heo). Burbank teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. As detailed in the rejection of claim 4, the disclosed method teaches or renders obvious each step of the apparatus recited in claim 11. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, which depends from claim 15 and recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, this claim is rejected as unpatentable over the same combination of prior art applied against claim 4 (i.e., Burbank in view of Heo). Burbank teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. As detailed in the rejection of claim 4, the disclosed method teaches or renders obvious each step of the apparatus recited in claim 18. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HONG FANG-WU whose telephone number is (571)270-0607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM to 5PM.
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, Paras Shah can be reached at (571)-270-1650. 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.
/JOHN HONG FANG-WU/Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
07/30/2026
Prosecution Insights