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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-3, 8-10, 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 8-10, 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,116,972 in view of Katpelly et al. (US Pub. 2010/0199295), herein referenced as Katpelly.
Instant application Claim 2
US Pat. 10,116,972 Claim 1
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, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including: receiving pixel data associated with a video frame of a video segment being presented by a first computing device;
A matching server for identifying video content being displayed by a media system, the matching server comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium containing instructions which when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:… receive pixel data associated with a video frame of a video segment being displayed by the media system…
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;
identify the video segment being displayed by the media system, wherein identifying the video segment includes comparing the pixel data with stored pixel data to find a closest match;
determining, in response to identifying the video segment being presented, contextual content associated with the video segment;
determine contextual content, wherein the contextual content is contextually related to the identified video segment,
receiving a communication associated with the contextual content; and facilitating a presentation of the contextual content on a … computing device in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content.
transmit one or more software instructions, wherein the one or more software instructions, when received by the media system, cause a software application associated with the contextual content to execute on the media system, wherein the software application provides the contextual content to the media system,
The claim in the instant application recites the additional limitation of facilitating a presentation of the contextual content on a second computing device in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content. Nevertheless, Katpelly discloses 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)).
It would have been obvious to include facilitating a presentation of the contextual content on a second computing device in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content in claim 1 of patent 10,116,972 for the benefit of providing the viewer the convenience of displaying contextually related content on their mobile device without interfering with the content on the primary display.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 2.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 8.
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 9.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 10.
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 16.
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 17.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 18.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-8, 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,200,278 in view of Katpelly et al. (US Pub. 2010/0199295), herein referenced as Katpelly.
Instant application Claim 2
US Pat. 12,200,278 Claim 1
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, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including: receiving pixel data associated with a video frame of a video segment being presented by a first computing device;
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, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including: receiving pixel data from a media system, wherein the pixel data includes pixel values derived from video content,
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;
determining an identification of the video content by comparing the pixel data to reference pixel data stored in a reference database;
determining, in response to identifying the video segment being presented, contextual content associated with the video segment;
identifying, in response to determining the identification of the video content, contextual content for presentation by the media system during an alternative version of the video content,
receiving a communication associated with the contextual content; and facilitating a presentation of the contextual content on a … computing device in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content.
transmitting one or more software instructions, wherein the one or more software instructions, when received by the media system, cause a software application associated with the contextual content to execute on the media system,
The claim in the instant application recites the additional limitation of facilitating a presentation of the contextual content on a second computing device in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content. Nevertheless, Katpelly discloses 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)).
It would have been obvious to include facilitating a presentation of the contextual content on a second computing device in response to receiving the communication associated with the contextual content in claim 1 of patent 12,200,278 for the benefit of providing the viewer the convenience of displaying contextually related content on their mobile device without interfering with the content on the primary display.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 7.
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 8.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 14.
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 15.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 14.
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), herein referenced as Katpelly and Bolle, 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:
…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).
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: …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).
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: …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).
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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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
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 April 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights