DETAILED ACTION
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
The double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new rejections below, necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghuvamshi, US 2006/0287912 in view of Roberts et al., US 8,387,102, further in view of Eyer et al., US 2018/0176640.
Claim 2, 9, 16. Raghuvamshi teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
a processor and memory for executing instructions [Fig. 1, paras. 33, 74, 75];
receiving an identification of a video channel being presented by a display device;
obtaining, in response to receiving the identification of the video channel, a substitute video segment [initial ad is obtained by client and displayed, Figs. 2A, 3B, 4, paras. 7, 23-27; also see paras. 53-57; 60-63], wherein the substitute video segment is configured to replace a segment of the video channel upon detecting watermark data;
identifying the watermark data in a video frame of the video channel [events are invisible data in the stream that indicate spot breaks, i.e. watermarks indicating substitution candidate portions, Figs. 2A, 3B, paras. 23-27, 53-57; triggers also read on watermark data, paras. 52, 53]; and
displaying, in response to identifying the watermark data in the video frame of the video channel, the substitute video segment, the substitute video segment replacing a video segment included in the video channel with the substitute video segment [initial ad is displayed when events or triggers are detected, replacing video segment, Figs. 2A, 3B, paras. 23-27, 53-57, 60-63].
Raghuvamshi is silent on obtaining a portion of a substitute video segment before identifying watermark data.
Roberts teaches a system for inserting ads including obtaining a substitute video segment and identifying, after obtaining the substitute video segment, watermark data in a video frame of the video channel, the watermark data indicating a presence of a candidate portion of the video channel for content substitution [ads may be stored in ad storage 24 prior to identifying break marker (watermark), i.e. the watermark is detected after ad is obtained; Figs. 2, 4, col. 2, 2-9, 47-49; col. 5, 25-55; col. 7, 38-52]; and
displaying, in response to identifying the watermark data in the video frame of the video channel, the substitute video segment [note this reads on presenting the substitute video segment over the entire video segment, or simply not displaying the video while displaying the substitute video] a video segment included in the video channel [ads are displayed, Figs. 2, 4, col. 2, 2-9, 47-49; col. 5, 25-55; col. 7, 38-52].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Raghuvamshi with the teaching of Roberts, storing ads in advance to reduce display latency and to conserve transmission resources during viewing.
The above references are silent on a watermark embedded within pixels. Eyer teaches a system for triggering events in a video stream wherein the watermark data is encoded into one or more rows of pixels of the video frame [watermark is embedded in frame using luminance values of pixels, Fig. 7A, 7B, 10, paras. 57, 61, 76, 77, 80, 82, 84-89, 101].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate Eyer, embedding the watermark in the content itself in order to deter unauthorized use (e.g. by removing or copying non-embedded watermark data). Using the pixels of the image itself is also more efficient since no extra metadata needs to be transmitted outside of the media file. Further, this type of watermark survives compression/decompression and limits visibility of the watermark [see Eyer, para. 48].
5, 12, 19. Raghuvamshi teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: decoding the substitute video segment in preparation for identifying watermark data in the video channel [metadata is received 410 after Present Initial Ad 408, i.e. ad is decoded before (in preparation for) identifying watermark data, Figs. 3B, 4, 52-59, 60-63].
6, 13, 20. Raghuvamshi teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: decoding the substitute video segment after identifying watermark data in the video channel [metadata may be encoded part way into initial ad, i.e. the ad continues to be presented/decoded after the metadata—including any event/trigger data—is identified, Figs. 3B, 4, 52-59, 60-63]..
7, 14, 21. (New) The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the substitute video segment includes one or more third party content items [ads may be requested from third party ad system 106 by either client 102 or CDS 104 (the other two parties), Fig. 1; also see paras 23-27].
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghuvamshi and Roberts and Eyer as cited above in view of Green as cited above.
3, 10, 17. The parent claims are silent on selecting a substitute segment based on location. Green teaches a video distribution system wherein obtaining the substitute video segment is based on a location of the display device [based in geographical location, paras. 185, 241, 242].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references, targeting ads based on location in order to increase the value of impressions, for example allowing local businesses to tailor a campaign to the relevant geographical region.
Claims 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghuvamshi and Roberts and Eyer as cited above in view of Cohee as cited above.
4, 11, 18. The parent claims are silent on selecting ads based on daypart. Cohee teaches a system wherein obtaining the substitute video segment is based on a current daypart of the video channel being presented by the display device [paras. 101, 102].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate Cohee, selecting ads that are appropriate for the audience that is likely to be currently watching, improving the effectiveness of the ad and making conversion more likely.
Claim 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghuvamshi and Roberts and Eyer as cited above in view of Miller et al., US 2002/0194959.
8, 15. Raghuvamshi is silent on picture-in-picture capability.
Miller discloses a system wherein the substitute video segment is displayed in a picture-in-picture window of the display device [Figure 5C and paragraphs 31 and 68 illustrate that the substitute content may be displayed as a picture-in-picture overlay on the television screen foreground, while the live programming content is displayed on the television screen background]; and
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bakar to by including a PIP window in order to gradually occlude the main program rather than an abrupt shift to full screen which would be jarring to the viewer. Further, storing content in advance of display ensures that no delay accrues when switching to the secondary content. Prior aggregation also enables the selection of candidates based on user preferences, then simply choosing one candidate for insertion from the group.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights