DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment / Arguments
Claim Objections. Applicant’s response/amendment did not address the previous claim objections. While Applicant’s Remarks indicate that the objections are addressed, they are in fact not addressed by amendment. (Please see 08/12/2026 amendments and objected claims 6 and 16). The claim objections are maintained.
103 Rejections. The examiner has considered the amendments to the independent claims and, in response, is not persuaded that the amendments overcome the prior art of record. To the independent claims, Applicant added claim language that deferring rendering of the video card includes obtaining a first rendering time, determining a “deferring duration”, determining a second time, later than the first time, for rendering the card based on the deferring duration (to summarize what was added to the independent claims). This is taught by the prior art, which teaches determining a “dwell duration”, as previously claimed, and deterring rendering based thereon. The newly added “deferring duration” is taught by Bastide, in terms of determining when a user loses interest in video content and at what time. It can be at these times that content is rendered, such as a video card (see Batside, Fig. 2 and para. 14).
The “deferring duration” is taught by Bastide,and directly related to the “dwell duration”. Applicant’s arguments about what Bastide allegedly intends, and what Applicant’s claim 1 allegedly intends, or what technical problem either the reference, or Applicant’s claim 1, presumably may or may not address, is irrelevant unless claimed, and irrelevant to the reference if the reference teaches what Applicant is claiming. Stated differently, whether Bastide defers rendering to attract the user’s attention or any other intended use or goal, or whether Applicant defers rendering to know whether a video card need or need not be rendered, or any other intended use or goal (Remarks, pages 10-11), is respectfully irrelevant if this is not i not in the claim language, and it is not (i.e. claim 1 does not have any step that says a video card need not be rendered, instead it defers rendering, as taught by Bastide, regardless of any “why” or reason behind it).
The rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding claim 6, in line 4, “first duration” should be amended to “a first duration”; and in line 6, “second duration” should be amended to “a second duration”. The same objections exist in claim 16. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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, 5-7, 9-12, 15-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastide (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0306215 A1) in view of Fein (U.S. Patent No. 10,620,801) (both references cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1:
Bastide teaches: a method for rendering a video card (see the method of Fig. 2. At step 216, a popup, overlay or other video media are rendered, whereby the popups and/or overlaps are a rendered video card), comprising:
obtaining a feature of a plurality of historical videos (Fig. 2: 206, analyzing the video stream (a plurality of historical videos) for information including advertisements, modal dialogue, popups, user satisfaction or commentary). [Wingdings font/0xDF] Any one or combination of these are features of the historical videos/video stream). See also para. 32, which states that “Here, media dwell improvement program 110A, 110B searches both the stream and the stream information for any factors that might be relevant to the user's interest.”. The factors of para. 32 teach Applicant’s claimed features);
determining dwell duration for a first video based on the feature of the plurality of historical videos (para. 35: “in the 2 minute 20 second video Ski Fails, everyone has stopped watching one minute and thirty seconds”, dwell duration is one minute and thirty seconds, for a first video “Ski Fails”); and
in response to the dwell duration meeting a predetermined condition, deferring rendering of a card associated with the first video (This is taught at least two ways:
First teaching: para. 34: “at 210, media dwell improvement program 110A, 110B predicts a likelihood of abandonment at one or more given times based on the user information and the stream information. The media dwell improvement program 110A, 110B may make this prediction based on a number of factors drawn from the stream information and user information, both specific and demographic, as well as user activity information such as keyboard activity, eye movement, or other behavior patterns from which user interest can be inferred. “Here, where dwell duration meets or exceeds the predicted time of abandonment, deferring rendering of a card associated with the video would be obvious and taught/suggested by the prior art (e.g. do not render the card because the user has likely abandoned interest in the video when the dwell duration meets the predicted abandonment time);
Second, alternative teaching: para., 39: “ media dwell improvement program 110A, 110B may assign a score to each of a number of factors relevant to a user's interest at a given point in the video, where the score represents the positive effect that factor will have on the user's interest; where the combined scores fail to exceed a predetermined threshold, media dwell improvement program 110A, 110B may predict the user to lose interest at that point in the video. In some embodiments, the media dwell improvement program 110A, 110B may predict a loss of interest at multiple points within a video. In some embodiments, media dwell improvement program 110A, 110B may conduct the step of predicting abandonment anew if the user continues watching the stream after the previously predicted time of abandonment has passed”. Here, the predetermined condition is related to the score and/or predicted loss of interest at a given point in the video. In the case where the dwell duration is greater than the predicted loss of interest point in the video, deferred rendering of a card is taught/suggested, as the user has no more interest in the video),
wherein deferring rendering of the card associated with the first video comprises:
obtaining a first time for rendering the card;
determining a deferring duration;
determining a second time based on the first time and the deferring duration, wherein the second time is later than the first time; and
deferring a rendering time of the card from the first time to the second time (Bastide, see above mapping and two alternate teachings of determining a dwell duration, which is indicative of how long a user will have interest in a video and when a user may lose interest or abandon same. Bastide, para. 14, also teaches that this information can be used to identify where in the video to generate images, overlays, popups, or other means of visually conveying information to a user (i.e. such as a video card, see below re: Fein reference for specific teaching of video card and its existence). See also Bastide, Fig. 2. The first time can be an original intended time, and a deterring duration can be determined based on the above mapped dwell duration, based on user behavior, and the second time can be later than the first time, and determined by identifying where in the video to generate/render what is described in para. 14).
Re: video cards, while Bastide does not specify a “video card” as a rendered media, Fein teaches that this is known in the art (Fein, Abstract and/or Fig.2: 210 a video card).
It would have been obvious for one for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 1, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the feature of the plurality of historical videos comprises: determining the plurality of historical videos before the first video (e.g. para. 35-37, ski videos are this example, the first video can be a specific ski video, and the historical videos before the first);
determining whether the plurality of historical videos comprise a specified-scene video (see paras. 35-41, Bastide teaches that there can be a scene in a video that is of particular interest to a user based on analysis. This can be a scene in a ski video. Bastide also gives another example of the scene can be the “Final Jeopardy” scene of a Jeopardy video); and
in response to the plurality of historical videos comprising the specified-scene video, obtaining a common feature of the plurality of historical videos (para. 34, common feature can be: user activity information such as keyboard activity, eye movement, or other behavior patterns from which user interest can be inferred, and/or para. 32: factors relevant to user interest, viewership, ratings) and a scene feature (para. 39-42, scene feature can be: spikes in user ratings or satisfaction at moments in the scene, and mentions of the scene in comments) ,
and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 2, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method according to claim 1, wherein deferring the rendering of the card associated with the first video comprises: determining whether the dwell duration is less than a preset value; and
deferring the rendering of the card in response to the dwell duration being less than the preset value, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Bastide teaches one example whereby “Final Jeopardy” occurs at around 55 minutes into any given episode of Jeopardy, and this 55 minute mark is identified as a point of interest for viewers (para. 41). In the case where the dwell duration is less than 55 minutes (i.e. the point of interest), deferring rendering the video card would be obvious and taught/suggested, because at any point prior, or less than the preset value of 55 minutes, the user interest isn’t likely to be optimal.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtain the method according to claim 1, wherein deferring the rendering of the card associated with the first video comprises: determining whether the dwell duration is less than a first preset value (see mapping to claim 5);
deferring the rendering of the card for first duration in response to the dwell duration being less than the first preset value (see mapping to claim 5); and
deferring the rendering of the card for second duration in response to the dwell duration being greater than or equal to the first preset value and less than a second preset value (see mapping to claim 5, the time between a first preset value and second could be a time between two determined “points of interest”) (see also Bastide, paras. 41-42 for more description on “point of interest”, as also described in mapping to claim 5),
wherein the first preset value is less than the second preset value (the time of the first point of interest, i.e. at 55 min, comes before the second point of interest, i.e. 90 minutes, which can be the second preset value), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of historical videos are separated from the first video by at least one video, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
In one example of Bastide, ski videos are being reviewed as historical videos (see para. 37). This teaches/suggests the first video (a specific ski video) being separated from the historical videos (the other ski videos) by at least one video (such as “Jeopardy”, para. 41).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method according to claim 1, wherein the video card comprises a first control, and the method further comprises:
in response to a touch operation of a user on the first control, displaying a page associated with the card, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Bastide teaches touch operations (para. 49, touch screens). Bastide also teaches that the video card is not particularly limited, and can be any one of the following “interactive elements”: popups, modal dialogue, picture-in-picture video, audio cues, text boxes, snapshots, and overlays (see claim 14). Modifying Bastide, in view of same, to include a touch operation capability, per Bastide, and an interactive video card element, as per Bastide, whereby a user interacting with the interactive element, via touch, and a page being displayed as a result of the interaction, is taught/suggested and motivated by the teachings of Bastide (i.e. to have an interaction result from interaction with the interactive elements).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method according to claim 1, further comprising: rendering the card on the first video in response to the dwell duration failing to meet the predetermined condition, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
See mapping to claim 1. In cases where dwell duration is less than the time that a user is predicted to abandon the video or lose interest in the video, then rendering the card on the first video would be an obvious result or step (as the user is still presumably engaged or interested in the video content).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11: see also claim 1.
Bastide teaches: an electronic device (claim 8, a computer system), comprising: a processor (claim 8, one or more processors); and a memory coupled to the processor (claim 9, memory), wherein the memory has instructions stored therein, the instructions, when executed by the processor (claim 8, program instructions stored on memory for execution by the one or more processors), cause the electronic device to:
The operations of claim 11 correspond to the method of claim 1; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 12: see claim 2.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 15: see claim 5.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 16: see claim 6.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 17: see claim 7.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 19: see claim 9.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 20: see also claim 1.
Bastide teaches: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by a processor (claim 15, memory storing program instructions executable by a processor), cause a computer device to:.
The instructions correspond to the method of claim 1; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastide in view of Fein, and further in view of Bloch (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0258647 A1).
Regarding claim 3:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method according to claim 2, wherein the common feature comprises at least one of: average playing duration of the plurality of historical videos,
a smallest value of playing duration of the plurality of historical videos,
a largest value of playing duration of the plurality of historical videos,
a number of touches on a like control for the plurality of historical videos,
a number of touches on a comment control for the plurality of historical videos,
a number of playing completions of the plurality of historical videos,
a number of touches on an avatar control for the plurality of historical videos, and a number of skips for the plurality of historical videos, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the
art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Bloch, related to audiovisual presentations and data analytics, more particularly, to systems and methods for dynamically modifying the components of a media player based on analyzed interactions with interactive videos (see para. 1), teaches an analyzer that can track user behavior and engagement with interactive content (se para. 95). The analytical module can track (taken directly from para. 95 of Bloch):
(1) number of user interactions with interactive content;
(2) timing and cadence of interactions with interactive content;
(3) places of user interactions with interactive content (e.g., portion of screen where the user taps or clicks, nodes at which interaction occurs, etc.);
(4) instances of seek, pause, replay, volume change, and other media player control interactions;
(5) occurrences and types of user feedback;
(6) content preferences;
(7) likes, dislikes, ratings, shares, and other social media-type interactions; and
(8) user demographic data, user device characteristics, browser type, geographic location, and other types of data described herein.
Other types of data appropriate for modeling user behavior can be collected.
Also, the interactive content as noted above is content from an interactive video (see Bloch, claim 1). Bloch also teaches that in analysis of data, totals, running totals, averages and weighed averages are known to analyze data (para. 94). Accordingly, Bloch teaches Applicant’s claim 3, as shown above. Modifying the applied references, such that the videos that are analyzed per Bastide, include analysis and features such as those taught by Bloch as part of common features, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill, with additional motivation to be able to better analyze user interaction and interest with content to tailor further content to said user.
The prior art included each element recited in claim 3, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method according to claim 3, wherein the scene feature comprises at least one of: a number of taps on a specified scene (Bloch, para. 95), a number of skips for the specified scene (Bloch, claim 5m para.95), a distribution of likes on the specified scene (para. 95), and a distribution of dislikes on the specified scene (para. 95), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Modifying the applied references, to include any one of the above, per Bloch, as a scene feature, per Bastide, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill, with additional motivation to be able to better analyze user interaction and interest with content to tailor further content to said user.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13: see claim 3.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 14: see claim 4.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastide in view of Fein, and further in view of Anderton-Yang (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2022/0237892 A1).
Regarding claim 8:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method according to claim 1, wherein the dwell duration for the first video is determined by a trained fast/slow flicking model, and the trained fast/slow flicking model is trained at a server and obtained from the server, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
** Claim interpretation: Applicant’s “trained fast/slow flicking model” is being interpreted as a trained machine learning/artificial intelligence model, that is trained and obtained at/from a server. Aside from that, Applicant respectfully should add more features to this model to specify the claimed model from models in the art (i.e. naming it a “fast/slow flicking” model, without more, does not add any distinguishing model features aside from those noted above re: server involvement).
Anderton-Yang teaches a machine learnt model (claim 1, machine learning model) that is both trained and obtained from a server (para. 93, Fig. 2 illustrated “an example block diagram for a system that trains and uses a machine learning network to evaluate video…. The system can be the server system 120 described above with respect to FIG. 1.”). The model of Anderton-Yang is also relevant to Applicant’s claims and Bastide and Fein, in that the models of Anderton-Yang can “learn the combinations of video characteristics that are most likely to result in high ratings or other desired outcomes. “ (quoting para. 4).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 8, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18: see claim 8.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
* * * * *
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights