DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2, 4-9, 11-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandrekar et al. (US 2012/0311633) in view of Lincke (US 2016/0246115), and further in view of Greene (US 2016/0150228), and further in view of Christie et al. (US 2020/0084488).
Claim 1, Mandrekar teaches a method, by at least one computer processor, for incorporating streaming content into non-streaming content presented by a media device, the method comprising:
monitoring playback of the non-streaming content (i.e. cable television) being accessed by the media device (i.e. display), wherein the non-streaming content is provided by a first content provider (i.e. cable TV provider) to the media device, and wherein the non-streaming content is being provided by the media device for display on a display device (p. 0022);
“generating, while the non-streaming content is displayed by the display device, a fingerprint of the non-streaming content” (i.e. content attributes) (p. 0054);
“identifying a plurality of streaming content based at least in part on the fingerprint (i.e. recommendations related to currently tuned program), wherein the plurality of streaming content comprises a related streaming version (i.e. recommendation) of the non-streaming content, wherein the plurality of streaming content is provided by a second content provider different from the first content provider” (i.e. internet provider) (p. 0054-0056).
Mandrekar is silent regarding the specific features of:
“generating, while the non-streaming content is displayed by the display device and based on a determination that the non-streaming content has been displayed by the display device for a predetermined duration of time”;
“wherein the plurality of streaming content comprises at least one of a streaming version of the non-streaming content”;
generating an interactive pop-up overlay based on the plurality of streaming content;
displaying the interactive pop-up overlay while the non-streaming content is displayed by the display device;
receiving, responsive to displaying the interactive pop-up overlay, a user selection of the non-streaming content via the interactive pop-up overlay;
transmitting, while the non-streaming content is displayed by the display device, a request for the user selection of the non-streaming content from the second content provider; and
transitioning display of the non-streaming content on the display device to the user selection of the non-streaming content responsive to receiving the user selection of the non-streaming content from the second content provider.
Lincke teaches the specific feature of:
“generating, while the non-streaming content is displayed by the display device and based on a determination that the non-streaming content has been displayed by the display device for a predetermined duration of time” (i.e. audio fingerprint generated for broadcast content after a threshold of time) (p. 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided generation of fingerprints as taught by Lincke to the system of Manrekar to identify broadcast content (p. 0066).
Greene teaches the specific feature of:
“wherein the plurality of streaming content comprises at least one of a streaming version of the non-streaming content (i.e. alternative video sources for the same program) (p. 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided alternate sources of content as taught by Greene to the system of Manrekar to provide adjustments to video quality (p. 0015).
Christie teaches the specific feature of:
generating an interactive pop-up overlay based on the plurality of streaming content (fig. 17);
displaying the interactive pop-up overlay while the non-streaming content (1700) is displayed by the display device (fig. 17);
receiving, responsive to displaying the interactive pop-up overlay (i.e. selecting mad men), a user selection of the streaming content via the interactive pop-up overlay (fig. 17; p. 0071-0074);
transmitting, while the non-streaming content (1700) is displayed by the display device, a request for the user selection of the streaming content (i.e. selecting mad men) from the second content provider (i.e. internet provider) (fig. 17; p. 0048-0049, 0071-0074); and
transitioning display of the non-streaming content (1700) on the display device to the user selection of the streaming content (i.e. mad men) responsive to receiving the user selection of the streaming content from the second content provider (i.e. internet provider (figs. 17-18; p. 0048-0049, 0071-0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided pop up overlays as taught by Christie to the system of Mandrekar to provide recommendation to a user during content presentation (p. 0071).
Claim 2, Mandrekar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the non-streaming content is accessed by the media device through an antenna or cable connected to the media device (i.e. cable TV set top box) (p. 0022).
Claim 4, Mandrekar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the non-streaming content is associated with episodic content, wherein the episodic content comprises a first content episode and a second content episode, and wherein the non-streaming content comprises the first content episode (p. 0033).
Claim 5, Mandrekar teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the streaming content comprises the second content episode (i.e. related recommended content from external sources) (p. 0025, 0054).
Claim 6, Mandrekar teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the episodic content further comprises a streaming version of the first content episode (i.e. episode content from external sources including the Internet), and wherein the streaming content comprises the streaming version of the first content episode (p. 0024, 0054).
Claim 7, Mandrekar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the fingerprint is based on a determination that the non-streaming content is displayed on the display device for a predetermined duration of time (i.e. remains tuned) (p. 0031).
Claim 8 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 1.
Claim 9 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 2.
Claim 11 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 4.
Claim 14 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 5.
Claim 12, Mandrekar teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise pre-buffering the secondary content prior to the start time of the predetermined timeslot for the secondary content (i.e. pre-recorded recommended content) (p. 0026).
Claim 13, Mandrekar is silent regarding the system of claim 12, wherein the operations further comprise providing the secondary content at the start time of the predetermined timeslot for the secondary content.
Christie teaches regarding the system of claim 12, wherein the operations further comprise providing the secondary content at the start time of the predetermined timeslot for the secondary content (i.e. at the end of the television program currently being displayed) (p. 0071).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided recommendations as taught by Christie to the system of Mandrekar to provide users with more programming (p. 0071).
Claims 15 and 17 recites “A non-transitory, tangible computer-readable medium having 15. instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device” to perform the steps of claims 1 and 12.
Claim 15 additionally recites the specific feature of “a first format” and “a second format” with respect to primary and secondary content.
Mandrekar teaches “A non-transitory, tangible computer-readable medium having 15. instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device” to perform the steps of claims 1 and 12 (p. 0075).
Mandrekar also teaches the additionally recited specific feature of “a first format” and “a second format” with respect to primary and secondary content (i.e. format for primary and secondary display devices) (p. 0056).
Claims 16 recites “A non-transitory, tangible computer-readable medium having 15. instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device” to perform the steps of claim 2.
Mandrekar teaches “A non-transitory, tangible computer-readable medium having 15. instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device” to perform the steps of claim 2 (p. 0075).
Claims 19 recites “A non-transitory, tangible computer-readable medium having 15. instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device” to perform the steps of claim 12.
Mandrekar teaches “A non-transitory, tangible computer-readable medium having 15. instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device” to perform the steps of claim 12 (p. 0075).
Claims 20 recites “A non-transitory, tangible computer-readable medium having 15. instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device” to perform the steps of claim 13.
Mandrekar teaches “A non-transitory, tangible computer-readable medium having 15. instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device” to perform the steps of claim 13 (p. 0075).
Claim(s) 3, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandrekar et al. (US 2012/0311633) in view of Lincke (US 2016/0246115), and further in view of Greene (US 2016/0150228), and further in view of Christie et al. (US 2020/0084488), and further in view of Mercer et al. (US 2018/01676980).
Claim 3, Mandrekar is silent regarding the method of claim 1, wherein in generating the fingerprint of the non-streaming content the method further comprises recording a clip of the non-streaming content, wherein the clip is for a predetermined period of time, and wherein the fingerprint is generated based on the clip.
Mercer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in generating the fingerprint of the non-streaming content the method further comprises recording a clip (i.e. recording) of the non-streaming content, wherein the clip is for a predetermined period of time, and wherein the fingerprint is generated based on the clip (i.e. pre-recorded for content identification) (p. 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided fingerprint generation as taught by Mercer to the system of Mandrekar to provide content recognition (p. 0046).
Claim 10 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 3.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandrekar et al. (US 2012/0311633) in view of Lincke (US 2016/0246115), and further in view of Greene (US 2016/0150228), and further in view of Christie et al. (US 2020/0084488), and further in view of Bradley et al. (US 2016/0309229).
Claim 18, Mandrekar is silent regarding the non-transitory, tangible computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the determining the secondary content that is related to the primary content comprises analyzing the metadata of the content to determine a genre of the primary content, and the retrieving the secondary content from the content provider comprises retrieving the secondary content based on the genre of the primary content.
Bradley teaches the non-transitory, tangible computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the determining the secondary content that is related to the primary content comprises analyzing the metadata of the content to determine a genre of the primary content, and the retrieving the secondary content from the content provider comprises retrieving the secondary content based on the genre of the primary content (i.e. matching genre of presently displayed content item) (p. 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided genre matching as taught by Bradley to the system of Mandrekar to recommended content based on currently displayed program (p. 0041).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130343598 A1 Kocks; Peter et al. – fingerprint for visual sample
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSHFIKH I ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1710. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00PM-9:00PM.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 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 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.
MUSHFIKH I. ALAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2426
/MUSHFIKH I ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 6/15/2026
Prosecution Insights