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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on July 20, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patents 12,200,278 and 10,116,972 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-21 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.
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 2, 6, 9, 13, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katpelly et al. (US Pub. 2010/0199295) in view of Bolle et al. (US Pat. 6,675,174) and in further view of Neumeier et al. (US Pub. 2010/0306808), herein referenced as Katpelly, Bolle, and Neumeier, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Katpelly discloses “A system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium containing instructions which when executed on the one or more processors ([0017], [0033]-[0036], Fig. 1), cause the one or more processors to perform operations including:
…wherein the video segment includes at least a portion of a video program ([0004], [0011], [0034], i.e., identifies and displays video segments that are similar to a user's currently viewed video segment, wherein segments/scenes are a portion of the video program);
…determining, in response to identifying the video segment being presented, contextual content associated with the video segment ([0033]-[0036], Fig. 2, i.e., the SSA 30 receives the information, it looks for video scenes that have metadata similar to the current segment/scene from, for example, a video database);
receiving a communication associated with the contextual content; and facilitating a presentation of the contextual content on a second computing device in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content…” ([0010]-[0011], [0033]-[0036], [0038], Figs. 2, 5B, i.e., identifying and displaying recommendations for video segments or scenes that are similar to a user's currently viewed video segment. The recommendations may also be provided to a supplementary mobile device (e.g., a smartphone or a remote control equipped with a display)).
Katpelly fails to explicitly disclose receiving pixel data associated with a video frame of a video segment being presented by a first computing device; identifying the video segment being presented by the first computing device by comparing the pixel data with stored pixel data associated with known video segments.
Bolle teaches the technique of receiving pixel data associated with a video frame of a video segment being presented by a first computing device; identifying the video segment being presented by the first computing device by comparing the pixel data with stored pixel data associated with known video segments (Abstract, Col. 3 lines 33-62, Col. 15 lines 30-44, Col. 21 line 60-Col. 22 line 9, i.e., system to perform exact matching or similarity matching between a large store of reference temporal media sequences and a query target temporal media sequence. The system is not limited to finding exact matching media segments but also can find media segments that are similar. For instance, an abbreviated frame is an array of digital values representing the average intensities of the pixels in a particular portion of the video frame. Each commercial is represented by an abbreviated frame, extracted from the first shot (scene) of the commercial, and the duration of the commercial. These abbreviated frames are stored in memory in a linked list where the ordering is determined by the total brightness of all the pixels in the video frame portion. Upon detection of a scene change in the live video stream, an abbreviated frame is computed along with the average intensity. An abbreviated frame in memory is found that has total brightness close to the computed abbreviated frame within a predetermined threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of receiving pixel data associated with a video frame of a video segment being presented by a first computing device; identifying the video segment being presented by the first computing device by comparing the pixel data with stored pixel data associated with known video segments as taught by Bolle, to improve the media playback system of Katpelly for the predictable result of similarity matching of multimedia time sequences for multimedia database indexing and searching (Col. 7 lines 20-22).
The combination still fails to disclose wherein the identifying of the video segment includes determining an offset time of the video segment within the video program and facilitating a presentation of the contextual content … in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content, and at a time based on the offset.
Neumeier teaches the technique of providing wherein the identifying of the video segment includes determining an offset time of the video segment within the video program and facilitating a presentation of the contextual content … in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content, and at a time based on the offset ([0012], [0014], [0024], [0070], Fig. 1, i.e., providing contextually targeted content to an interactive television system. The contextual targeting is based on not only identification of the video segment being displayed, but also a determination concerning the playing time or offset time of the particular portion of the video segment being currently displayed. For example, in response to identifying the video segment being viewed and, optionally, determining the time offset, the widget presents the TV viewer with a widget in the form of pop-up window 110 that shows categories relating to the subjects most relevant to the video segment being viewed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of providing wherein the identifying of the video segment includes determining an offset time of the video segment within the video program and facilitating a presentation of the contextual content … in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content, and at a time based on the offset as taught by Neumeier, to improve the media playback system of Katpelly for the predictable result of accurately identifying video segments and simultaneously providing contextually targeted content thereby enriching the viewing experience.
Regarding claim 6, Katpelly discloses “wherein the contextual content is configured to be presented by the second computing device while the video segment is being presented by the first computing device.” ([0010]-[0011], [0033]-[0036], [0038], Figs. 2, 5B, i.e., recommendations may also be provided to a supplementary mobile device (e.g., a smartphone or a remote control equipped with a display)).
Regarding claim 9, Katpelly discloses “A computer-implemented method ([0017], [0033]-[0036], Fig. 1) comprising: …wherein the video segment includes at least a portion of a video program ([0004], [0011], [0034], i.e., identifies and displays video segments that are similar to a user's currently viewed video segment, wherein segments/scenes are a portion of the video program);
…determining, in response to identifying the video segment being presented, contextual content associated with the video segment ([0033]-[0036], Fig. 2, i.e., the SSA 30 receives the information, it looks for video scenes that have metadata similar to the current segment/scene from, for example, a video database);
receiving a communication associated with the contextual content; and facilitating a presentation of the contextual content on a second computing device in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content.” ([0010]-[0011], [0033]-[0036], [0038], Figs. 2, 5B, i.e., identifying and displaying recommendations for video segments or scenes that are similar to a user's currently viewed video segment. The recommendations may also be provided to a supplementary mobile device (e.g., a smartphone or a remote control equipped with a display)).
Katpelly fails to explicitly disclose receiving pixel data associated with a video frame of a video segment being presented by a first computing device; identifying the video segment being presented by the first computing device by comparing the pixel data with stored pixel data associated with known video segments.
Bolle teaches the technique of receiving pixel data associated with a video frame of a video segment being presented by a first computing device; identifying the video segment being presented by the first computing device by comparing the pixel data with stored pixel data associated with known video segments (Abstract, Col. 3 lines 33-62, Col. 15 lines 30-44, Col. 21 line 60-Col. 22 line 9, i.e., system to perform exact matching or similarity matching between a large store of reference temporal media sequences and a query target temporal media sequence. The system is not limited to finding exact matching media segments but also can find media segments that are similar. For instance, an abbreviated frame is an array of digital values representing the average intensities of the pixels in a particular portion of the video frame. Each commercial is represented by an abbreviated frame, extracted from the first shot (scene) of the commercial, and the duration of the commercial. These abbreviated frames are stored in memory in a linked list where the ordering is determined by the total brightness of all the pixels in the video frame portion. Upon detection of a scene change in the live video stream, an abbreviated frame is computed along with the average intensity. An abbreviated frame in memory is found that has total brightness close to the computed abbreviated frame within a predetermined threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of receiving pixel data associated with a video frame of a video segment being presented by a first computing device; identifying the video segment being presented by the first computing device by comparing the pixel data with stored pixel data associated with known video segments as taught by Bolle, to improve the media playback system of Katpelly for the predictable result of similarity matching of multimedia time sequences for multimedia database indexing and searching (Col. 7 lines 20-22).
The combination still fails to disclose wherein the identifying of the video segment includes determining an offset time of the video frame within the video program and facilitating a presentation of the contextual content … in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content, and at a time based on the offset time.
Neumeier teaches the technique of providing wherein the identifying of the video segment includes determining an offset time of the video frame within the video program and facilitating a presentation of the contextual content … in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content, and at a time based on the offset time ([0012], [0014], [0024], [0070], Fig. 1, i.e., providing contextually targeted content to an interactive television system. The contextual targeting is based on not only identification of the video segment being displayed, but also a determination concerning the playing time or offset time of the particular portion of the video segment being currently displayed. For example, in response to identifying the video segment being viewed and, optionally, determining the time offset, the widget presents the TV viewer with a widget in the form of pop-up window 110 that shows categories relating to the subjects most relevant to the video segment being viewed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of providing wherein the identifying of the video segment includes determining an offset time of the video frame within the video program and facilitating a presentation of the contextual content … in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content, and at a time based on the offset time as taught by Neumeier, to improve the media playback system of Katpelly for the predictable result of accurately identifying video segments and simultaneously providing contextually targeted content thereby enriching the viewing experience.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated above in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, Katpelly discloses “A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium containing instructions which when executed on one or more processors ([0017], [0033]-[0036], Fig. 1), cause the one or more processors to perform operations including: …wherein the video segment includes at least a portion of a video program ([0004], [0011], [0034], i.e., identifies and displays video segments that are similar to a user's currently viewed video segment, wherein segments/scenes are a portion of the video program);
…determining, in response to identifying the video segment being presented, contextual content associated with the video segment ([0033]-[0036], Fig. 2, i.e., the SSA 30 receives the information, it looks for video scenes that have metadata similar to the current segment/scene from, for example, a video database);
receiving a communication associated with the contextual content; and facilitating a presentation of the contextual content on a second computing device in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content.” ([0010]-[0011], [0033]-[0036], [0038], Figs. 2, 5B, i.e., identifying and displaying recommendations for video segments or scenes that are similar to a user's currently viewed video segment. The recommendations may also be provided to a supplementary mobile device (e.g., a smartphone or a remote control equipped with a display)).
Katpelly fails to explicitly disclose receiving pixel data associated with a video frame of a video segment being presented by a first computing device; identifying the video segment being presented by the first computing device by comparing the pixel data with stored pixel data associated with known video segments.
Bolle teaches the technique of receiving pixel data associated with a video frame of a video segment being presented by a first computing device; identifying the video segment being presented by the first computing device by comparing the pixel data with stored pixel data associated with known video segments (Abstract, Col. 3 lines 33-62, Col. 15 lines 30-44, Col. 21 line 60-Col. 22 line 9, i.e., system to perform exact matching or similarity matching between a large store of reference temporal media sequences and a query target temporal media sequence. The system is not limited to finding exact matching media segments but also can find media segments that are similar. For instance, an abbreviated frame is an array of digital values representing the average intensities of the pixels in a particular portion of the video frame. Each commercial is represented by an abbreviated frame, extracted from the first shot (scene) of the commercial, and the duration of the commercial. These abbreviated frames are stored in memory in a linked list where the ordering is determined by the total brightness of all the pixels in the video frame portion. Upon detection of a scene change in the live video stream, an abbreviated frame is computed along with the average intensity. An abbreviated frame in memory is found that has total brightness close to the computed abbreviated frame within a predetermined threshold).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of receiving pixel data associated with a video frame of a video segment being presented by a first computing device; identifying the video segment being presented by the first computing device by comparing the pixel data with stored pixel data associated with known video segments as taught by Bolle, to improve the media playback system of Katpelly for the predictable result of similarity matching of multimedia time sequences for multimedia database indexing and searching (Col. 7 lines 20-22).
The combination still fails to disclose wherein the identifying of the video segment includes determining an offset time of the video frame within the video program and facilitating a presentation of the contextual content … in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content, and at a time based on the offset time.
Neumeier teaches the technique of providing wherein the identifying of the video segment includes determining an offset time of the video frame within the video program and facilitating a presentation of the contextual content … in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content, and at a time based on the offset time ([0012], [0014], [0024], [0070], Fig. 1, i.e., providing contextually targeted content to an interactive television system. The contextual targeting is based on not only identification of the video segment being displayed, but also a determination concerning the playing time or offset time of the particular portion of the video segment being currently displayed. For example, in response to identifying the video segment being viewed and, optionally, determining the time offset, the widget presents the TV viewer with a widget in the form of pop-up window 110 that shows categories relating to the subjects most relevant to the video segment being viewed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of providing wherein the identifying of the video segment includes determining an offset time of the video frame within the video program and facilitating a presentation of the contextual content … in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content, and at a time based on the offset time as taught by Neumeier, to improve the media playback system of Katpelly for the predictable result of accurately identifying video segments and simultaneously providing contextually targeted content thereby enriching the viewing experience.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated above in the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 3, 10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katpelly in view of Bolle, Neumeier, and in further view of Hartwig et al. (US Pub. 2009/0024923), herein referenced as Hartwig.
Regarding claim 3, the combination fails to disclose “wherein the alternative version is a version of the video program starting from the beginning of the video program.”
Hartwig teaches the technique of receiving a video program starting from the beginning of the video program ([0049], Fig. 3d, i.e., selecting videos in the playlist begins playback from the beginning and further illustrated by progress bar 310). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of playing the video program starting from the beginning as taught by Hartwig to improve the media playback system of Katpelly for the predictable result of allowing the user to view the full context of the video program.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated above in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated above in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katpelly in view of Bolle, Neumeier, and in further view of Kunisetty (US Pub. 2014/0130092), herein referenced as Kunisetty.
Regarding claim 4, the combination fails to disclose “wherein the contextual content includes a higher resolution version of the video segment.”
Kunisetty teaches the technique of providing wherein the contextual content includes a higher resolution version of the video segment ([0018], [0029]-[0030], [0036], Figs. 1-3, i.e., an icon indicating a resolution or video quality of the version of the multimedia program available from the corresponding alternative content source (e.g., the display of the one of the acronyms "HD" or "SD" to high definition or standard definition, respectively)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of providing wherein the contextual content includes a higher resolution version of the video segment as taught by Kunisetty, to improve the media playback system of Katpelly for the predictable result of providing the user with potentially better options, such as versions with higher display resolution ([0003]).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated above in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated above in the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katpelly in view of Bolle, Neumeier, and in further view of Byers (US Pub. 2015/0143404), herein referenced as Byers.
Regarding claim 5, the combination fails to disclose “wherein the video segment includes third party content, and wherein the contextual content includes alternative third party content configured to replace the third party content.”
Byers teaches the technique of providing wherein the video segment includes third party content, and wherein the contextual content includes alternative third party content configured to replace the third party content ([0012], [0016], [0030]-[0031], Figs. 1-3, i.e., the embedded advertisement is replaced with a new advertisement that correlates to the content segment. For instance, the emotional context of the media content is determined to select an advertisement that matches the emotional context). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of providing wherein the video segment includes third party content, and wherein the contextual content includes alternative third party content configured to replace the third party content as taught by Kunisetty, to improve the media playback system of Katpelly for the predictable result of providing advertisements that are more likely to appeal to the viewer using surrounding media content context.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated above in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated above in the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 7, 14, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katpelly in view of Bolle, Neumeier, and in further view of Daughtrey et al. (US Pub. 2010/0313152), herein referenced as Daughtrey.
Regarding claim 7, Katpelly discloses “…wherein the communication is generated in response to user interaction with the user interface.” (Figs. 5A-B, 6), however the combination fails to explicitly disclose transmitting instructions to the first computing device, wherein the instructions cause the first computing device to present a user interface.
Daughtrey teaches technique transmitting instructions to the first computing device, wherein the instructions cause the first computing device to present a user interface ([0052], i.e., the server transmits instructions to the user system to render the user interface on a display of the client system). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of transmitting instructions to the first computing device, wherein the instructions cause the first computing device to present a user interface as taught by Kunisetty, to improve the media playback system of Daughtrey for the predictable result of reducing client-side complexity and allowing more provider control.
Therefore, the combination teaches “wherein the operations further include: transmitting instructions to the first computing device, wherein the instructions cause the first computing device to present a user interface associated with the contextual content, and wherein the communication is generated in response to user interaction with the user interface.”
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated above in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated above in the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 8, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katpelly in view of Bolle, Neumeier, and in further view of Berkowitz et al. (US Pub. 2013/0071090), herein referenced as Berkowitz.
Regarding claim 8, the combination fails to disclose “wherein facilitating the presentation of the contextual content includes facilitating a connection between the second computing device and a third-party content server, wherein the third-party content server is configured to provide third party content at a specified time interval of the video segment.”
Berkowitz teaches the technique of providing wherein facilitating the presentation of the contextual content includes facilitating a connection between the second computing device and a third party content server, wherein the third party content server is configured to provide third party content at a specified time interval of the video segment ([0029]-[0030], Fig. 5, i.e., supplementary content, then, may be provided by a supplementary content provider 36 to the second media device 64, wherein the supplementary content is synchronized with the primary content).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of providing wherein facilitating the presentation of the contextual content includes facilitating a connection between the second computing device and a third party content server, wherein the third party content server is configured to provide third party content at a specified time interval of the video segment as taught by Berkowitz, to improve the media playback system of Katpelly for the predictable result of providing a system that can accommodate a great variety of sources of primary content, and provide supplementary content that may be of interest to users based upon the primary content ([0006]).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is interpreted and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated above in the rejection of claim 8.
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 Alexander Q Huerta whose telephone number is (571)270-3582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/ALEXANDER Q HUERTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights