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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsukagoshi (US Pat. No. 10, 511, 802).
Regarding claim 1, Tsukagoshi discloses a method comprising:
identifying a relevance index for a media asset, wherein the relevance index corresponds to one or more play speeds of the media asset (see figure 16, col.15 lines 8-19, displaying is performed in normal speed, double speed and quad-speed);
identifying a timed text file associated with the media asset, wherein the timed text file comprises a plurality of subtitles for the media asset (see col. 15 lines 20-34 subtitles 1, 2, 3 corresponding to value “4”, “1”, and “2”);
modifying the plurality of subtitles based at least in part on the relevance index (see col. 15 lines 35-44, in a case of double speed reproduction example, subtitle 1 and subtitle 3 are selected; see col. 4 lines 9-19 subtitle to be displayed selected according to reproduction speed); and
generating a variant of the timed text file associated with the relevance index comprising the modified plurality of subtitles (see col. 15 lines 34-col. 16 line 3, the TS analyzing unit selectively process TS packets including data of subtitle PES packets corresponding to “4” and “2”, in a case of double speed reproduction; the related subtitles are obtained).
Regarding claim 2, Tsukagoshi discloses the relevance index is an integer representation of a play speed of the media asset (see figure 17, col. 13 lines 39-51 and col. 15 lines 8-18).
Regarding claim 4, Tsukagoshi discloses the modifying the plurality of subtitles comprises omitting sentences (see figure 16 and col. 7 lines 26-36).
Regarding claim 5, Tsukagoshi discloses the modifying the plurality of subtitles is further based at least in part on ensuring that the modified plurality of subtitles is readable at the one or more play speeds (see col. 16 line 56-col. 7 line 2).
Regarding claim 6, Tsukagoshi discloses the modifying the plurality of subtitles comprises shortening one or more sentences in the plurality of subtitles (see figure 16, col. 9 lines 38-47 and col. 15 lines 34-53).
Regarding claim 7, Tsukagoshi discloses the shortening the one or more sentences comprises removing one or more filler words comprising at least one of discourse markers, pause fillers, or hesitation forms (see figures 5, 16 and col. 7 lines 26-36 and col. 15 line 43-col. 16 line 3).
Regarding claim 8, Tsukagoshi discloses the one or more sentences is shortened using natural language processing or artificial intelligence (see figure 5, col. 1 lines 23-28, col. 7 lines 50-62 and col. 20 line 47-col. 21 line 7).
Regarding claim 9, Tsukagoshi discloses determining one or more most relevant portions of the plurality of subtitles; and removing at least one portion of the plurality of subtitles that is not determined to be in the one or more most relevant portions (see figure 17 and col. 17 lines 36-62).
Regarding claim 10, Tsukagoshi discloses the one or more most relevant portions of the plurality of subtitles is determined using natural language processing or artificial intelligence (see col. 7 lines 50-62 and col. 20 line 47-col. 21 line 7).
Regarding claim 11, the limitation of claim 11 can be found in claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 11 is analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above. See also figure 1 and col. 16 lines 20-31 and col. 21 lines 1-25.
Claims 12 and 14-19 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 2 and 4-9 respectively above.
Regarding claim 20, Tsukagoshi discloses a method comprising: identifying a relevance index corresponding to one or more play speeds of a media asset (see rejection of claim 1 above); identifying a timed text file associated with the media asset, wherein the timed text file comprises a plurality of subtitles for the media asset; modifying one or more subtitles of the plurality of subtitles based at least in part on the relevance index (see rejection of claim 1 above); and supplementing the timed text file with the modified one or more subtitles, wherein the modified one or more text (see col. 15 lines 34-col. 16 line 3, the TS analyzing unit selectively process TS packets including data of subtitle PES packets corresponding to “4” and “2”, in a case of double speed reproduction; the related subtitle are obtained; see also col. 16 line 44- col. 17 line 18).
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukagoshi (US Pat. No. 10, 511, 802 hereinafter referred as Tsukagoshi 802) in view of Tsukagoshi (US Pat. No. 6,204,883 hereinafter referred as Tsukagoshi 883).
Regarding claim 3, although Tsukagoshi 802 discloses the limitation of claim 1, Tsukagoshi 802 fails to specifically disclose modifying the plurality of subtitles is further based at least in part on information contained in a user profile.
In the same field of endeavor Tsukagoshi 883 discloses modifying the plurality of subtitles is further based at least in part on information contained in a user profile (see abstract, displaying high quality subtitle in accordance to a preference of the user; see col. 2 lines 57-64 displaying subtitle that dynamically changes timewise with less data amount; see also figures 18A-18B and col. 17 lines 25-48).
Therefore, in light of the teaching in Tsukagoshi 883 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsukagoshi 802 by adding the feature of modifying the plurality of subtitles based at least in part on information contained in a user profile in order to switch the display of the subtitle quickly without degrading the background video image and to transmit and to provide the user portions which are of interest.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 3 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN SHIBRU whose telephone number is (571)272-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, THAI TRAN can be reached at 571 272 7382. 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.
/HELEN SHIBRU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484 January 24, 2026
