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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to application No. 18/939,909 filed on 04/27/2026. Claim(s) 1-20 are subject to a restriction requirement. In response dated 04/27/2026, Applicant has elected Group I: Claims 1-11 and 17-20 without traverse. Claims 1-11 and 17-20 is/are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s filed on 03/26/2025 and 10/03/2025 is/are considered.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitsukawa et al. (US 6,282,713).
Consider claims 1 and 17, Kitsukawa teaches a computer system and computer storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed, by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, comprising: at least one processor; and computer memory having computer-readable instructions embodied thereon, that, when executed by the at least one processor, perform operations (Fig.1, Col 4: lines 25-54) comprising:
determining a content card associated with a video, the content card including an indication of an entity associated with the video and a presentation criterion for presenting the content card; determining a condition corresponding to the presentation criterion for presenting the content card is satisfied; based on the condition corresponding to the presentation criterion being satisfied, causing presentation of the content card, via a user interface, during a presentation of the video (Col 2: lines 38-48, Col 7: lines 10-20 teaches when advertising information is available for an item displayed in a scene of the television broadcast. At least one displayed mark, wherein displayed marks may be superimposed over the broadcast of the television program on the screen. Displayed marks comprise an indicator for each item, and indicators may be representative of the items to which the indicators correspond. Col 6: lines 54-60 teaches advertising information is stored along with timing data that links the advertising information to the corresponding scene or program. Col 8: lines 20-33 teaches advertising information is provided for numerous items 511-519 present in the program scene 502, as indicated by the displayed advertising marks 521-529);
detecting, via the user interface, a user interaction with the content card; in response to detecting the user interaction: based on the card entity, generating, by accessing a knowledge base, a content to be provided via a content window; causing presentation, via the user interface, of the content window; and causing the content to be presented via the content window (Col 2: lines 49-61, Col 7: lines 21-40 teaches advertising information for a particular item is requested when the viewer selects the indicator corresponding to the content item in which the viewer is interested. Selection is performed using a cursor or a pointer. Upon request, the advertising information is displayed on a display along with the broadcast of the currently selected television program. Advertising information may be displayed by superimposing information the information over the broadcast of the television program on the screen. Furthermore, advertising information may be displayed on a portion of the display along with the television program broadcast. Col 8: lines 37-45 teaches selection of advertising mark and causing display of the advertising information corresponding to the advertising mark. Col 8: lines 46-57 teaches all the different kinds of advertising information displayed for an item).
Consider claim 4, Kitsukawa teaches wherein the content card is caused to be presented over the video, and while the video is presented, by using a layer such that the video is not modified to include presentation of the content card (Col 2: lines 43-44, Col 7: lines 13-16, Col 8: lines 31-36); and
wherein the detecting the user interaction with the content card comprises detecting a user engagement with the content card (Col 2: lines 48-52, Col 7: lines 22-26, Col 8: lines 41-46).
Consider claim 5, Kitsukawa teaches wherein the presentation criterion comprises a temporal criterion (Col 2: lines 38-41; Col 6: lines 54-60, Col 8: lines 8-11), an event detection criterion for an event in the video and corresponding to the entity, or an object detection criterion for an object in the video and corresponding to the entity.
Consider claim 8, Kitsukawa teaches further comprising: subsequent to causing presentation of the content card, determining the condition corresponding to the presentation criterion for presenting the content card is not satisfied; and based on the condition corresponding to the presentation criterion not being satisfied, causing the content card not to be presented (Col 2: lines 38-48, Col 7: lines 10-20 teaches when advertising information is available for an item displayed in a scene of the television broadcast. At least one displayed mark, wherein displayed marks may be superimposed over the broadcast of the television program on the screen. Displayed marks comprise an indicator for each item, and indicators may be representative of the items to which the indicators correspond. Col 6: lines 54-60 teaches advertising information is stored along with timing data that links the advertising information to the corresponding scene or program. Col 8: lines 20-33 teaches advertising information is provided for numerous items 511-519 present in the program scene 502, as indicated by the displayed advertising marks 521-529. As marks are displayed based on timing data that links advertising information the corresponding scene or program, they are displayed during the corresponding scene or program. Thus, as the television broadcast advances onto the next scene, the displayed marks would be removed, as they no longer corresponding to the timing for that corresponding scene of the program, thus no longer meeting presentation criterion, and thus would be removed. And new marks that correspond to the new timing and scene are displayed).
Consider claim 9, Kitsukawa teaches wherein the content card associated with the video is determined based on metadata or a header of the video (Col 2: lines 38-48, Col 6: lines 45-60, Col 8: lines 5-33), and wherein the video comprises prerecorded video media, a live video feed, a video file (Col 2: lines 22-23, Col 6: lines 46-48, Col 8: lines 22-23), or streaming video media.
Consider claim 11, Kitsukawa teaches wherein the content card further includes a card property, wherein the presentation of the content card is caused to be presented in accordance with the card property, and wherein the card property comprises:
a card formatting aspect indicating a size of the card, an orientation of the card, or a location for presenting the card with respect to the location of the video (Col 2: lines 38-41; Col 6: lines 54-60, Col 8: lines 8-11);
an attribution aspect comprising a first visual indication of an original creator of the content card;
a feedback aspect comprising a first user interface element configured to enable a viewer of the content card to provide feedback regarding the content card;
an editing aspect comprising one of a second visual indication that the content card is not editable or a second user interface element configured to enable the viewer of the content card to modify an aspect of the content card; or
a comment aspect comprising a third user interface element configured to enable the viewer to input a text-based comment.
Consider claim 20, Kitsukawa teaches wherein the content card associated with the video is determined based on metadata associated with the video or a header of the video (Col 2: lines 38-48, Col 6: lines 45-60, Col 8: lines 5-33), and wherein the video comprises prerecorded video media, a live video feed, a video file (Col 2: lines 22-23, Col 6: lines 46-48, Col 8: lines 22-23), or streaming video media.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitsukawa et al. (US 6,282,713) in view of Jin et al. (US 2025/0157234).
Consider claims 2 and 18, Kitsukawa teaches wherein generating the content based on the card entity (Col 2: lines 49-61, Col 7: lines 21-40, Col 8: lines 37-57), but does not explicitly teach comprises:
generating a query input for the knowledge base;
performing a query operation using the knowledge base and the query input;
receiving a query result; and
providing a representation of the query result as the content.
In an analogous art, Jin teaches generating a query input for the knowledge base; performing a query operation using the knowledge base and the query input; receiving a query result; and providing a representation of the query result as the content (Paragraph 0021, 0042, 0046-0049, 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kitsukawa to include generating a query input for the knowledge base; performing a query operation using the knowledge base and the query input; receiving a query result; and providing a representation of the query result as the content, as taught by Jin, for the advantage of utilizing recent advances in natural language processing and machine learning to synthesize written text that is coherent and matches the input data (Jin – Paragraph 0003), leveraging the power of artificial intelligence to quickly provide relevant information.
Consider claim 3, Kitsukawa and Jin teach wherein the knowledge base comprises a language model, wherein the query input comprises an input prompt for the language model that includes the entity and an instruction to generate a summary explanation regarding the entity, and wherein the query result comprises an output provided by the language model in response to receiving the input prompt (Jin - Paragraph 0021, 0042, 0046-0049, 0055).
Claim(s) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitsukawa et al. (US 6,282,713) in view of Baxter et al. (US 2022/0053233).
Consider claim 6, Kitsukawa teaches wherein the presentation criterion (Col 2: lines 38-48, Col 7: lines 10-20, Col 6: lines 54-60, Col 8: lines 20-33), but do not explicitly teach comprises the object detection criterion for the object corresponding to the entity, and wherein the condition is determined to be satisfied based on a detection of the object in the video by using video object detection.
In an analogous art, Baxter teaches comprises an object detection criterion for an object corresponding to an entity, and wherein a condition is determined to be satisfied based on a detection of the object in the video by using video object detection (Paragraph 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kitsukawa to include comprises an object detection criterion for an object corresponding to an entity, and wherein a condition is determined to be satisfied based on a detection of the object in the video by using video object detection, as taught by Baxter, for the advantage of associating items with specific time markers in the video at which an object appears within the video content (Baxter – Paragraph 0040), providing for more exact determination and precision in identifying the exact moment to trigger action.
Consider claim 19, Kitsukawa teaches wherein the presentation criterion (Col 2: lines 38-48, Col 7: lines 10-20, Col 6: lines 54-60, Col 8: lines 20-33), but do not explicitly teach comprises an object detection criterion for the object corresponding to the entity, and wherein the condition is determined to be satisfied based on a detection of the object in the video by using video object detection.
In an analogous art, Baxter teaches comprises an object detection criterion for an object corresponding to an entity, and wherein a condition is determined to be satisfied based on a detection of the object in the video by using video object detection (Paragraph 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kitsukawa to include comprises an object detection criterion for an object corresponding to an entity, and wherein a condition is determined to be satisfied based on a detection of the object in the video by using video object detection, as taught by Baxter, for the advantage of associating items with specific time markers in the video at which an object appears within the video content (Baxter – Paragraph 0040), providing for more exact determination and precision in identifying the exact moment to trigger action.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitsukawa et al. (US 6,282,713), in view of Baxter et al. (US 2022/0053233), and further in view of Kulas (US 2022/0036926).
Consider claim 7, Kitsukawa teaches wherein the presentation criterion (Col 2: lines 38-48, Col 7: lines 10-20, Col 6: lines 54-60, Col 8: lines 20-33), but do not explicitly teach comprises the object detection criterion for the object corresponding to the entity; and
further comprising, in response to detecting the user interaction with the content card, causing presentation of a visual indicator on the object in the video and corresponding to the entity.
In an analogous art, Baxter teaches comprises an object detection criterion for an object corresponding to an entity (Paragraph 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kitsukawa to include comprises an object detection criterion for an object corresponding to an entity, as taught by Baxter, for the advantage of associating items with specific time markers in the video at which an object appears within the video content (Baxter – Paragraph 0040), providing for more exact determination and precision in identifying the exact moment to trigger action.
Kitsukawa and Baxter do not explicitly teach further comprising, in response to detecting the user interaction with the content card, causing presentation of a visual indicator on the object in the video and corresponding to the entity.
In an analogous art, Kulas teaches further comprising, in response to detecting user interaction with a content card, causing presentation of a visual indicator on an object in a video and corresponding to an entity (Figs.1-4; Paragraph 0061; Paragraph 0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kitsukawa and Baxter to include further comprising, in response to detecting user interaction with a content card, causing presentation of a visual indicator on an object in a video and corresponding to an entity, as taught by Kulas, for the advantage of enabling user(s) to additionally pinpoint and see where corresponding object/items within the video content itself, providing added depth to available content/data.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitsukawa et al. (US 6,282,713) in view of Greiner (US 11,589,128).
Consider claim 10, Kitsukawa teaches wherein the content card associated with the video is generated by (Col 2: lines 38-48, Col 7: lines 10-20, Col 6: lines 54-60, Col 8: lines 20-33):
generating the content card comprising the indication of the entity associated with the video and the presentation criterion (Col 2: lines 38-48, Col 7: lines 10-20, Col 6: lines 54-60, Col 8: lines 20-33); and
storing, in the metadata or the header of the video, a record indicating an association of the content card and the video (Col 2: lines 38-48, Col 6: lines 45-60, Col 8: lines 5-33).
Kitsukawa does not explicitly teach receiving an input corresponding to creation of the content card, the input comprising at least the indication of the entity associated with the video and the presentation criterion for presenting the content card;
determining the entity has a corresponding search result from a search query performed based on the entity, the search result including information regarding the entity.
In an analogous art, Greiner teaches receiving an input corresponding to creation of the content card, the input comprising at least the indication of the entity associated with the video and the presentation criterion for presenting the content card; determining the entity has a corresponding search result from a search query performed based on the entity, the search result including information regarding the entity (Col 10: lines 46-49, 54-58, Col 11: lines 28-41, 53-58, Col 14: lines 22-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kitsukawa include receiving an input corresponding to creation of the content card, the input comprising at least the indication of the entity associated with the video and the presentation criterion for presenting the content card; determining the entity has a corresponding search result from a search query performed based on the entity, the search result including information regarding the entity, as taught by Greiner, for the advantage of providing user(s) with control over provision of supplemental contents, for objects that do have additional information, providing opportunities to further engage and interact with end user(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON K LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1446. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Brian Pendleton can be reached on 571-272-7527. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JASON K LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights