DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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 present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Specification
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.
Examiner’s Note
It is noted to Applicant that Allowable subject matter has been indicated in other Applications that are related to the current Application. Applicant is suggested to try and incorporate similar Allowable content into the current Application’s claims to try and move prosecution forward to an Allowance. Applicant is also cautioned not to repeat allowable subject matter in a manner that could lead to a double patenting rejection. This is just a note and suggestion by the Examiner, any amendments made by Applicant will be searched thoroughly before a final indication on Allowability is made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-5, 8-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilson et al., US 2011/0142417 in view of Zenor, US 2011/0314495.
Regarding claim 1, Wilson discloses an automated process performed by a computer system (with at least computer system; page 8, paragraph 61, and Fig. 6, element 600) having a processor (including at least a processor; page 8, paragraph 63, and Fig. 6, element 602), a data storage (including at least memories/storage; page 8, paragraphs 63-64, and Fig. 6, elements 604, 606, and 616), and an interface to a network (including at least a network interface; page 8, paragraph 63, and page 9, paragraph 66, and Fig. 6, element 620), the automated process comprising:
providing, by the computer system via the network, to a playback device (including at least a playback device, i.e. DVR/STB; page 1, paragraph 9), a plurality of identifiers describing a plurality of identified advertisements in a plurality of media programs (can send signaling/information that can be stored with a plurality of programming content; page 1, paragraph 13, and page 2, paragraph 16, and page 4, paragraph 35, and wherein this signaling/information includes at least identification information about advertisements; page 2, paragraphs 18 and 21, and page 3, paragraphs 25 and 29, and page 4, paragraph 37);
receiving, by the computer system via the network interface, a first identifier of the plurality of identifiers corresponding to a first identified advertisement encountered by the playback device (user device can monitor playback and can send information/identifications of determined, i.e. encountered, advertisements; page 2, paragraph 17, and page 4, paragraph 35);
determining, by the processor and replacing, by the processor and based upon the determination, the first identified advertisement (can utilize the advertising identification information in order to make determination(s) and select/send replacement advertisement(s); page 2, paragraph 17, and page 4, paragraph 35, and page 6, paragraph 48), comprising:
operations by identifying corresponding to the first identified advertisement, and operations by identifying corresponding to a second identified advertisement (can make determination and perform operations relating to the identified original/first advertisement(s) and operations for the selected/determined replacement advertisement(s); page 4, paragraph 35, and page 6, paragraph 48); and
transmitting, to the playback device via the network, a second identifier corresponding to the second identified advertisement to thereby direct the playback device to obtain the second identified advertisement and to present the second identified advertisement instead of the first identified advertisement (can transmit replacement advertisement(s) and information to the end user device in order to have the device obtain/play a particular identified replacement advertisement instead of the original/first advertising; page 2, paragraph 17, and page 4, paragraph 35, and with received information for presenting the particular advertisement(s); page 3, paragraphs 26-27, and again this information includes identification information about the particular advertisement(s); page 2, paragraphs 18 and 21, and page 3, paragraphs 25 and 29, and page 4, paragraph 37).
While Wilson does disclose sending advertisements from one device to another device (page 7, paragraph 53), Wilson does not explicitly disclose determining a saturation of a playback device comprising determining that a first identified advertisement has been played by the playback device at least a threshold value;
operations based upon the determined saturation;
a first advertiser, and a second advertiser; and
a second identified advertisement that is saturated on a second playback device.
In a related art, Zenor does disclose determining a saturation of a playback device comprising determining that a first identified advertisement has been played by the playback device at least a threshold value (determining saturation of an advertisement based on a number of times it has been encountered/shown, i.e. relating to a threshold; page 6, paragraphs 56-57, and page 9, paragraph 85, and page 10, paragraph 92, and with saturation explicitly being after presentation 3 times, i.e. a threshold; page 7, paragraph 71);
operations based upon the determined saturation (determination(s)/operation(s) based on the determined saturation; page 3, paragraphs 36-37, and page 6, paragraphs 58-59, and page 9, paragraphs 85-87);
a first advertiser, and a second advertiser (with plurality of identified advertisers, i.e. at least a first/second; Fig. 1, element 116, and page 2, paragraph 23, and page 3, paragraph 31); and
a second identified advertisement that is saturated on a second playback device (changing to and/or selection of different advertisements; page 2, paragraph 22, and pages 5-6, paragraph 55, and page 7, paragraph 63, and page 8, paragraph 74, wherein with advertisements which are shown to different households, i.e. interpreted as different advertisements being saturated on different households/device(s), and Fig. 1, elements 104, 110, and 114, and Fig. 6, see “Household 1”, with “ADVERTISEMENT 1” and “ADVERTISEMENT 2” being considered saturated at “Household 1” since they were shown 3 or more times, and different advertisement(s) presented, i.e. “ADVERTISEMENT 9”, which is considered saturated at “Household 4” since it was shown 3 or more times at “Household 4”, and again with saturation explicitly being after presentation 3 times, i.e. a threshold; page 7, paragraph 71).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Wilson and Zenor by allowing saturation metrics associated with advertisements to be utilized for selection and presentation of advertisements on playback devices, in order to provide an improved system and method for effectively selecting targeted advertising for display (Zenor; see abstract, and page 1, paragraphs 2 and 19).
Regarding claim 2, Wilson in view of Zenor discloses the first identified advertisement was contained within a first media program of the plurality of media programs, and the first media program was requested by the playback device (Wilson; based on requested program for playback, and wherein original/first advertisement(s) in at least a program, i.e. first, of a plurality; page 2, paragraphs 16-17, and page 6, paragraph 48); and
directing the playback device comprises directing the playback device to present the second identified advertisement during playback of the first media program (Wilson; during playback, device obtains/plays a particular identified replacement advertisement instead of the original/first advertising; page 2, paragraph 17, and page 4, paragraph 35, and with received information for presenting the particular advertisement(s); page 3, paragraphs 26-27, and again this information includes identification information about the particular advertisement(s); page 2, paragraphs 18 and 21, and page 3, paragraphs 25 and 29, and page 4, paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 3, Wilson in view of Zenor discloses the threshold value is associated with a first user associated with the playback device, and wherein determining that the first identified advertisement has been played by the playback device at least the threshold value comprises determining that the first identified advertisement has been played for the first user at least the threshold value (Zenor; determining saturation of an advertisement based on a number of times it has been encountered/shown, i.e. relating to a threshold; page 6, paragraphs 56-57, and page 9, paragraph 85, and page 10, paragraph 92, and with saturation explicitly being after presentation 3 times, i.e. a threshold; page 7, paragraph 71, and wherein a household can be interpreted as at least a first user, as a household could have only one person living there; Fig. 1, elements 102 and 104, and page 2, paragraph 22, and page 4, paragraph 44, and can also relate to an individual user, i.e. a first; page 10, paragraph 90).
Regarding claim 4, Wilson in view of Zenor discloses replacing, by the processor, the second identified advertisement with the first identified advertisement on the second playback device (Wilson; replacement advertisement(s); page 4, paragraph 35, and page 6, paragraph 48, and wherein with a plurality of devices, i.e. at least a first and second; page 2, paragraphs 18-20, and Zenor; changing to and/or selection of different advertisements; page 2, paragraph 22, and pages 5-6, paragraph 55, and page 7, paragraph 63, and page 8, paragraph 74, wherein with advertisements which are shown to different households, i.e. interpreted as different advertisements being shown and/or saturated with different households/device(s); Fig. 1, elements 104, 110, and 114, and Fig. 6, see “Household 1”, “Household 2”, “Household 3”, “Household 4”, or “Household 5”, with different “ADVERTISEMENT” presented depending on number of playbacks, i.e. a first advertisement from “Household 1” with the first device, could be sent for presentation on the device from “Household 2”), comprising
transmitting, to the second playback device via the network, the first identifier to thereby direct the second playback device to obtain the first identified advertisement and to present the first identified advertisement instead of the second identified advertisement (Wilson; can transmit replacement advertisement(s) and information to the end user device in order to have the device obtain/play a particular identified replacement advertisement instead of the original/first advertising; page 2, paragraph 17, and page 4, paragraph 35, and with received information for presenting the particular advertisement(s); page 3, paragraphs 26-27, and again this information includes identification information about the particular advertisement(s); page 2, paragraphs 18 and 21, and page 3, paragraphs 25 and 29, and page 4, paragraph 37, and again wherein with a plurality of devices, i.e. at least a first and second; page 2, paragraphs 18-20).
Regarding claim 5, Wilson in view of Zenor discloses the playback device transmits the first identifier in response to recognizing an upcoming playback of the first identified advertisement by the playback device (Wilson; user device can monitor playback and can send information/identifications of determined, i.e. encountered and/or upcoming, advertisements; page 2, paragraph 17, and page 4, paragraph 35, and again with the signaling/information including at least identification information about advertisements; page 2, paragraphs 18 and 21, and page 3, paragraphs 25 and 29, and page 4, paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 8, Wilson in view of Zenor discloses the first media program is a recording of a previously-broadcast television program (Wilson; with recorded video content on a DVR; page 1, paragraphs 9-13, and page 2, paragraph 16, and broadcasting, i.e. recording of a previous broadcast; page 3, paragraph 24, and page 5, paragraph 43, and Zenor; with broadcasting; page 2, paragraphs 22-23).
Regarding claim 9, Wilson in view of Zenor discloses the recording of the previously-broadcast television program is stored in a digital video recorder associated with the playback device (Wilson; with recorded video content on a DVR; page 1, paragraphs 9-13, and page 2, paragraph 16, and Fig. 1, elements 102, 117, and 119, and broadcasting, i.e. recording of a previous broadcast; page 3, paragraph 24, and page 5, paragraph 43, and Zenor; with broadcasting; page 2, paragraphs 22-23).
Claim 10, which discloses a process, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a playback device (Wilson; with at least a STB; page 1, paragraph 9, and page 8, paragraph 61, and Fig. 6, element 600) having a processor (Wilson; including at least a processor; page 8, paragraph 63, and Fig. 6, element 602), a data storage (Wilson; including at least memories/storage; page 8, paragraphs 63-64, and Fig. 6, elements 604, 606, and 616), and an interface to a network (Wilson; including at least a network interface; page 8, paragraph 63, and page 9, paragraph 66, and Fig. 6, element 620).
Claim 11, which discloses a process, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claim 12, which discloses a process, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claim 14, which discloses a process, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 8.
Claim 15, which discloses a process, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 9.
Claim 16, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 1 and 10. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a processor is configured to execute machine-readable instructions that are stored in memory (Wilson; page 5, paragraph 38, and page 8, paragraphs 61 and 64).
Claim 17, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claim 18, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Claim 20, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 9.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilson et al., US 2011/0142417 in view of Zenor, US 2011/0314495 and further in view of Christensen et al., US 2009/0204640.
Regarding claim 6, Wilson in view of Zenor discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as the plurality of identified advertisements and the plurality of identifiers (Wilson; signaling/information for a plurality of programming content; page 1, paragraph 13, and page 2, paragraph 16, and page 4, paragraph 35, and wherein this signaling/information includes at least identification information about advertisements; page 2, paragraphs 18 and 21, and page 3, paragraphs 25 and 29, and page 4, paragraph 37).
Wilson in view of Zenor does not explicitly disclose analyzing, by a computer system, a plurality of media programs to determine a content and plurality of identifiers.
In a related art, Christensen does disclose analyzing, by a computer system, a plurality of media programs to determine a content and plurality of identifiers (system obtains plurality of broadcast media and analyses it to determine content/events and identification information; page 7, paragraph 138, and wherein the identification information corresponds to at least advertisements; page 4, paragraph 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Wilson, Zenor, and Christensen by allowing the advertisements and identifying information already present in Wilson in view of Zenor to be recognized/identified by a server/system before sending to a user device, in order to provide an improved system and method for media advertising that associates an advertising media signal with another media signal (Christensen; page 1, paragraph 3).
Claim 19, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 6.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilson et al., US 2011/0142417 in view of Zenor, US 2011/0314495 and further in view of Sparrell, US 2007/0136742.
Regarding claim 7, Wilson in view of Zenor discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as the second identifier (Wilson; replacement advertisement(s) and information to the end user device in order to have the device obtain/play a particular identified replacement advertisement instead of the original/first advertising; page 2, paragraph 17, and page 4, paragraph 35, and with received information for presenting the particular advertisement(s); page 3, paragraphs 26-27, and again this information includes identification information about the particular advertisement(s); page 2, paragraphs 18 and 21, and page 3, paragraphs 25 and 29, and page 4, paragraph 37).
Wilson in view of Zenor does not explicitly disclose an identifier comprises a uniform resource locator.
In a related art, Sparrell does disclose an advertisement identifier comprises a uniform resource locator (information to obtain replacement advertising can consist of a URL; page 2, paragraphs 21-23, and page 5, paragraph 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Wilson, Zenor, and Sparrell by allowing the replacement advertisements already present in Wilson in view of Zenor to be identified/obtained via the use of a uniform resource locator, in order to provide an improved system and method for replacing or updating television advertisements in recorded television video content (Sparrell; page 1, paragraph 2).
Claim 13, which discloses a process, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424