DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
In response filed on March 30, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 51 and 61. Claims 1-50 were previously cancelled. Claims 51-70 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 Amendments and Amendments
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 51-70 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 51-70 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained accordingly.
Applicant specifically argues that
“The Office Action characterizes the claims as follows…The Office Action's overgeneralization asserting that the limitations of the claims fall within the abstract idea grouping of "certain methods of organizing human activity" does not apply to the amended claims. Indeed, the claims as amended are directed to improving presentation of a digital stream or video on demand (VOD) corresponding to a media asset. Such media assets are parsed into time segments, ranked based on a user profile, and a level of engagement of the user is then measured for a particular time segment. Based on the determined level of engagement of a user during presentation of a second time segment, an advertisement that was scheduled to be shown during a first time segment (occurring later than the second time segment) is instead rescheduled for presentation and is shown during the earlier, second time segment. This significantly improves the state of technology by allowing an advertisement schedule for a particular time period to be moved earlier in the presentation of the media asset into an opportune time segment based on the detected level of engagement. This process optimizes the digital stream or VOD video asset by playing an advertisement when the user's engagement level is high. Accordingly, when the claims, as amended, of the instant application are properly considered as a whole it is clear that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and are directed to patent eligible subject matter.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s first argument.
The requirement for the media asset to correspond to “a digital stream or video on demand (VOD)” serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea a particular type of media (specifically, a digital stream or video on demand). This reasoning was demonstrated in Bilski, where it was determined that certain claim elements limiting the basic concept of hedging to commodities and energy markets (merely limiting an abstract idea to one field of use) did not make the concept patentable. This reasoning was also demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the presentation is not improved in any technical sense. Applicant’s as-filed specification suggests that it is advantageous to implement the claimed business process because doing so can help ensure the advertisement is displayed to a user while the user is likely highly engaged/interested with the media, which can increase the effectiveness/value of the advertisement (see, for example, Applicant’s as-filed disclosure at paragraphs [0009] & [0027]-[0035]). The process is “optimized” only in that the user may be more receptive to the advertising message. These are non-technical business advantages/improvements. At most, the ordered combination of claim elements is directed to a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved process for advertising and/or scheduling/presenting an advertisement).
Applicant specifically argues that
“The Office Action asserts that the additional elements of 'a system comprising: a sensor configured to detect a level of engagement of a user; and control circuitry configured to' (claim 61); 'wherein the control circuitry is further configured to' (claims 62-66 and 68-70); 'for presentation via a user device...associated with the user device,' (claims 51 and 61); watching...on a same display device' (claims 57 and 67); a display screen on which the media asset is being presented' (claims 59 and 69); and 'wherein tracking user activity comprises capturing facial expressions of the user via a camera' (claims 60 and 70)" amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, are conventional computers or other machinery that are invoked as merely as a tool to perform an existing process, and/or do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Office Action, pp.5-6. Applicant respectfully disagrees, and asserts that the claims, as amended, are directed to improvements in computer capabilities, which are not abstract. Conventional media systems insert advertisements into pre-scheduled time segments. Also, conventional media systems are known to check the attention of the user and delay showing an advertisement away from the pre- scheduled time segment. However, these conventional media systems fail to move the advertisement into an earlier spot (i.e., the earlier second time segment) from a future scheduled position (i.e., the later first time segment) when a user is most engaged in his/her video device. The pending claims solve this problem in part by providing an improved media system which determines a time in a video stream when the user is most engaged and moves the advertisement to be displayed at this time. Thus, the solution provided by the claims improves the system for providing media assets and inserting additional content into them by moving an advertisement from a future scheduled position to an optimized earlier period where it is known that a user is most engaged in a media asset, and dynamically generates for display the advertisement during this optimized period.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s second argument.
The Examiner is not persuaded computer capabilities are improved in any technical aspect, even if the idea of rescheduling an advertisement for presentation during an earlier spot was novel and non-obvious and/or has a real-world benefit. Even if the process has utility, utility is not the standard for eligibility. Nor is the novelty or non-obviousness of any of the steps/formulas determinative of eligibility. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89, (1981 - the novelty of a process or its steps is not relevant to determining whether the claimed subject matter is patentable). Elec. Commc’n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 2020 - “[E]ven taking as true that claim 11 is ‘unique,’ that alone is insufficient to confer patent eligibility [when] the purported uniqueness of claim 11... is itself abstract.”’); See In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021 - A claim does not “cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit.”). See In re Smith, No. 2022-1310, 2022 WL 4112730, *3 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2022 – “But utility is not the test for patent eligibility under the Supreme Court’s cases.”). See also SAP, 898 F.3d at 1163 (“We may assume that the techniques claimed are ‘[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,’ but that is not enough for eligibility.”) (citation omitted). Even if the steps/formulas provide a useful business outcome, that is not enough for eligibility. See Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v.. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019 - the automation of data synthesis technology and device drivers for different bedside machines did not render the claims any less abstract even if the automation resulted in “life altering consequences”); See In re Elbaum, No. 2023-1418, 2023 WL 8794636, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2023 - holding that the usefulness and tax benefits of the abstract idea were insufficient to confer patent eligibility on the claims).
Examiner recommends amending the independent claims to positively recite use of the sensor/camera to track the user activity in front of the display screen on which the media asset is being presented by capturing activity/facial-expression data, and then explicitly determining the level of engagement using and/or based on this captured activity/facial-expression data. Claim 61 right now does not recite details that actively use the sensor to determine of the level of engagement (merely requires a sensor “configured to detect a level of engagement”, and later merely require “determining the level of engagement”) and therefore there lacks a combination of additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims 59, 60, 69, and 70 similarly fail to directly tie the determination of the level of engagement to making the determination using the captured facial expressions of the user via the camera and/or the tracked user activity (e.g., the determination generally “comprises” the tracking).
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of amended claims 51 and 61 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered, and are persuasive. See the Examiners rational in the “Indication of Novel and Non-Obvious Subject Matter” section at the end of this office action.
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.
v Claim(s) 51-70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 51-60 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), while claim(s) 61-70 is/are drawn to systems (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 51-70 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 51 (representative of independent claim(s) 61) recites/describes the following steps;
accessing a plurality of metadata items corresponding to content within a plurality of time segments of a media asset, wherein the media asset is scheduled for presentation via a user device;
providing for presentation…the media asset
accessing a user profile associated with the user device;
ranking the plurality of time segments of the media asset based on the user profile and the plurality of metadata items corresponding to the content within the plurality of time segments;
scheduling an advertisement for presentation during a first time segment of the plurality of time segments, wherein the first time segment is a highest ranked time segment;
determining a level of engagement of a user corresponding to the user profile with the media asset during presentation of a second time segment occurring in the media asset prior to the first time segment, wherein the second time segment is lower ranked than the first time segment; and
based on determining that the level of engagement of the user is above a threshold engagement level, rescheduling the advertisement for presentation during the second time segment
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a process for scheduling and re-scheduling a segment of a media asset to present an advertisement. More specifically, the process comprises accessing a plurality of metadata items corresponding to content within a plurality of time segments of a media asset, wherein the media asset is scheduled for presentation via a user device; accessing a user profile associated with the user device; ranking the plurality of time segments of the media asset based on the user profile and the plurality of metadata items corresponding to the content within the plurality of time segments; scheduling an advertisement for presentation during a first time segment of the plurality of time segments, wherein the first time segment is a highest ranked time segment; determining a level of engagement of a user corresponding to the user profile with the media asset during presentation of a second time segment occurring in the media asset prior to the first time segment, wherein the second time segment is lower ranked than the first time segment; and based on determining that the level of engagement of the user is above a threshold engagement level, rescheduling the advertisement for presentation during the second time segment, which amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (specifically, an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 51 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 61 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“using control circuitry” (claim 51)
“a system comprising: a sensor configured to detect a level of engagement of a user; and control circuitry configured to” (claim 61)
“for presentation via a user device…at the user device…associated with the user device;” (claims 51 and 61)
“a digital stream or video on demand (VOD) corresponding to the media asset” (claims 51 and 61)
“wherein the control circuitry is further configured to” (claims 62-66 and 68-70)
“watching…on a same display device” (claims 57 and 67)
“a display screen on which the media asset is being presented” (claims 59 and 69)
“wherein tracking user activity comprises capturing facial expressions of the user via a camera” (claims 60 and 70)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “using control circuitry” (claim 51) or using “a system comprising: a sensor configured to detect a level of engagement of a user; and control circuitry configured to” (claim 61) and “wherein the control circuitry is further configured to” (claims 62-66 and 68-70) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s own disclosure explains that these “additional” elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., the as-filed specification at paragraph [0064] “may be implemented using software running on one or more general purpose…processors” and [0067] “remote server may store the instructions for the application in a storage device. The remote server may process the stored instructions using circuitry (e.g., control circuitry 404)…” and [0045] “should be understood to mean any device for accessing the content described above, such as a television, a Smart TV…a personal computer (PC), a laptop computer, a tablet computer…a mobile telephone”). Furthermore, the recited sensor/camera (e.g., recitation of “wherein tracking user activity comprises capturing facial expressions of the user via a camera” (claims 60 and 70)) are conventional computers or other machinery that are invoked merely as a tool to perform an existing process (i.e., capture images) and that are being used in their ordinary capacity. In other words, the claims invoke the sensor/camera merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of “for presentation via a user device…at the user device…associated with the user device” (claims 51 and 61) and/or “a digital stream or video on demand (VOD) corresponding to the media asset” (claims 51 and 61) and/or “watching…on a same display device” (claims 57 and 67) and “a display screen on which the media asset is being presented” (claims 59 and 69) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces. It also serves to limit the application of the abstract idea to digital forms of media/advertising, and more specifically, to a particular type of digital media (specifically, a digital stream or video on demand). This reasoning was demonstrated in Bilski, where it was determined that certain claim elements limiting the basic concept of hedging to commodities and energy markets (merely limiting an abstract idea to one field of use) did not make the concept patentable. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. For example, Applicant’s as-filed specification suggests that it is advantageous to implement the claimed business process because doing so can help ensure the advertisement is displayed to a user while the user is likely highly engaged/interested with the media, which can increase the effectiveness/value of the advertisement (see, for example, Applicant’s as-filed disclosure at paragraphs [0009] & [0027]-[0035]). These are non-technical business advantages/improvements. At most, the ordered combination of claim elements is directed to a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved process for scheduling/presenting an advertisement).
Dependent claims 52-56 and 58 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 52-56 and 58 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). For example, claim 52 recites “further comprising, based on the rescheduling of the advertisement for presentation during the second time segment, generating for display the advertisement during playing of the second time segment”. This is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 52. This limitation is not an “additional element”, and therefore it is not subject to further analysis under Step 2A- Prong Two or Step 2B. The same logic applies to each of the other dependent claims, whose limitations are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and clarity. With respect to the other dependent claims not specifically listed here - each of the limitations/elements recited in these dependent claims other than those identified as being “additional” elements above (at the beginning of the Prong One analysis), are further part of the abstract idea encompassed by each respective dependent claim (i.e. it should be understood that these limitations are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “using control circuitry” (claim 51) or using “a system comprising: a sensor configured to detect a level of engagement of a user; and control circuitry configured to” (claim 61) and “wherein the control circuitry is further configured to” (claims 62-66 and 68-70) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “for presentation via a user device…at the user device…associated with the user device” (claims 51 and 61) and/or “a digital stream or video on demand (VOD) corresponding to the media asset” (claims 51 and 61) and/or “watching…on a same display device” (claims 57 and 67) and “a display screen on which the media asset is being presented” (claims 59 and 69) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Dependent claims 52-56 and 58 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 52-56 and 58 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Examiner recommends amending the independent claims to positively recite use of the sensor/camera to track the user activity in front of the display screen on which the media asset is being presented by capturing activity/facial-expression data, and then explicitly determining the level of engagement using and/or based on this captured activity/facial-expression data. Claim 61 right now does not recite details that actively use the sensor to determine of the level of engagement (merely requires a sensor “configured to detect a level of engagement”, and later merely require “determining the level of engagement”) and therefore there lacks a combination of additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims 59, 60, 69, and 70 similarly fail to directly tie the determination of the level of engagement to making the determination using the captured facial expressions of the user via the camera and/or the tracked user activity (e.g., the determination generally “comprises” the tracking).
Indication of Novel and Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Independent claims 51 and 61 recite novel and non-obvious subject matter. Each of the dependent claims similarly recite novel and non-obvious subject matter by virtue of their dependency on one of these claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of novel and non-obvious subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Wakimoto et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2002/0162110, October 31, 2002 - hereinafter "Wakimoto”); Peterson et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2014/0172579, June 19, 2014 - hereinafter "Peterson”); Kerns (U.S. PG Pub No. 2018/0218400 August 2, 2018 - hereinafter "Kerns”); Sternberg et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2018/0189398 July 5, 2018 - hereinafter "Sternberg”); Dey (U.S. PG Pub No. 2017/0118515 April 27, 2017) (hereinafter "Dey”); Ferens et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2014/0096152 April 3, 2014 - hereinafter "Ferens”); Zilberstein et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2016/0127776 May 5, 2016) (hereinafter "Zilberstein”); Bakshi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,736,503, August 15, 2017) (hereinafter "Bakshi”); Dollard (U.S. PG Pub No. 2017/0213243, July 27, 2017); Hua et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2007/0204310, August 30, 2007) (hereinafter "hua”); Liu et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2017/0257669, September 7, 202017); Ye et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2012/0158492, June 21, 2012); Garza et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2014/0337868 November 13, 2014) “An Efficient Ad Recommendation System For TV Programs” (Sudha Velusamy, Shalabh Bhatnagar, Lakshmi Gopal, and V. Sridhar; published in “Multimedia Systems” in July 2008), “Eye movements when viewing advertisements” (Higgins, Emily et al. published on March 17, 2014 in “Frontiers in Psychology - Volume 5, article 2010)
Wakimoto discloses ranking content segments based on preference indicators (e.g., prominence of a favorite actor) and scheduling an advertisement to be displayed during a playing of a first segment of the plurality of time segments with highest prominence of the preferred cast member.
Peterson discloses capturing facial expressions of users that are watching a video asset to determine their level of engagement with the video asset and dynamically inserting advertisements into the video asset during a segment during which the user’s level of engagement exceeds a threshold.
Kerns discloses capturing facial expressions of users that are watching a video asset (having pre-schedule advertisements) to determine their level of engagement with the video asset during playing and dynamically inserting advertisements into the video asset during a segment during which the user’s level of engagement exceeds a threshold including during time segments prior to the scheduled advertisement and/or not playing the advertisement during a regularly-scheduled segment when engagement is low.
Sternberg discloses parsing a media asset into a plurality of equal time segments and capturing facial expressions of users that are watching a video asset to determine their level of engagement with the video asset and dynamically inserting advertisements into the video asset during a segment during which the user’s level of engagement exceeds a threshold.
Dey discloses utilizing profiles corresponding to a plurality of user’s that are jointly watching a video asset in order to determine which ad and which time segment to display an advertisement.
Ferens discloses capturing facial expressions and/or other biometric data of users that are watching a video asset to determine their level of engagement with the video asset and dynamically inserting advertisements into the video asset during a segment during which the user’s level of engagement exceeds a threshold and adjusting a pre-existing ad schedule accordingly.
Zilberstein discloses parsing a video asset and scheduling advertisement pods/breaks during the video asset and capturing facial expressions of users that are watching the video asset to determine their level of engagement and dynamically inserting additional/extended advertisements into the a first pod/break based on the level of engagement and adjusting a subsequent ad break/pd accordingly (e.g., not displaying an advertisement during the subsequent break/pod).
Bakshi discloses parsing a video asset (digital stream or VOD) into segments, retrieving metadata corresponding to the segments, and comparing user profile data to the metadata to determine segments of the video asset the user will likely be interested in in order to schedule advertisements during/before/after these high-interest segments.
Dollard teaches determining and ranking segments to schedule advertisements for display along with streamed/VOD content based on user profile and content characteristics.
Hua discloses matching user profile data to segment metadata in order to determine time segments of the video asset the user will likely be interested in in order to schedule advertisements during/before/after these high-interest segments.
Liu teaches using cameras to detect facial expression of viewers viewing streaming/VOD content and determining their level of engagement with the content and comparing this to a threshold and displaying a default ad rather than a targeted ad when the level of engagement is lower than a threshold.
Ye teaches dynamic personalized determination of a segment to insert an advertisement based on predicted level of interest/attention.
Garza teaches capturing posture and facial expression of the user by a sensor and determining the current level of engagement of the user based on the posture and facial expressions.
“An Efficient Ad Recommendation System For TV Programs” discloses personalized advertisement insertion into VOD video assets.
“Eye movements when viewing advertisements” discloses using cameras to detect facial expressions and determine engagement with content being viewed in order to select advertisements and/or measure their effectiveness.
As per claims 51 and 61, the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of “ranking the plurality of time segments of the media asset based on the user profile and the plurality of metadata items corresponding to the content within the plurality of time segments; scheduling an advertisement for presentation during a first time segment of the plurality of time segments, wherein the first time segment is a highest ranked time segment; determining a level of engagement of a user corresponding to the user profile with the media asset during presentation of a second time segment occurring in the media asset prior to the first time segment, wherein the second time segment is lower ranked than the first time segment; and based on determining that the level of engagement of the user is above a threshold engagement level, rescheduling the advertisement for presentation during the second time segment” with particular emphasis on the fact that the second time segment occurs prior to the first time segment in the media asset. The Examiner understands this limitation to require the claimed method/system to include a step of rescheduling display of the same scheduled advertisement for playing during playing of a second time segment occurring before the first time segment in the media asset during which it was previously scheduled to play, and doing so based on the level of engagement being above a threshold engagement level during the second time segment. The Examiner understands that rescheduling display of the scheduled advertisement for playing during playing of the second time segment occurring before the first time segment in the media asset requires assigning/designating the second time segment during which the same advertisement is to be played, and doing so prior to playing of the advertisement during the second time segment. The closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of actively scheduling an advertisement to be displayed during a first time segment of a plurality of ranked segments of a video asset (ranked based on matching user profile with segment metadata) in combination with determined level of engagement of the user during playing of a second segment time segment preceding the first time segment and rescheduling the advertisement for display during the second time segment instead of during the first time based on the determined level of engagement of the user during the second time segment. Although various prior art references disclose parsing video assets into segments (e.g., segments of equal length), scheduling advertisements to be played during certain ranked segments based on matching segment metadata with user profile attributes, capturing real-time level of engagement (e.g., based on facial expressions or other biometric/psychographic information) to determine a user’s level of engagement in a video asset being displayed, and triggering the display of previously-scheduled advertisement during other time segments based on the real-time level of engagement (including the display of an advertisement at a time prior to when it was previously scheduled to be displayed), there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine the presently claimed features in the manner required b by the claim language other than with impermissible hindsight.
Claims 52-60 and 62-70 depend upon claims 51 or 61 and have all the limitations of claims 51 or 61, and therefore similarly recite novel and non-obvious subject matter.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
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 extension fee 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 JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights