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 § 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.
Claim(s) 2,3, 5-13, 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips (US 2017/0374121) in view of Oliveira (US 2008/0010119).
Regarding claim 2, 12, Phillips discloses A method comprising:
receiving, at a user device, a first content item ([0037], fig. 3A);
determining an upcoming interruption in transmission of the first content item ([0037], fig. 3A(302) determines when a user will enter a “white spot” where there will be a video outage);
based at least in part on the determined upcoming interruption in transmission of the first content item, determining that transmission of a first portion of the first content item will be restricted ([0003, 0015, 0032]);
identifying a timepoint in the first content item corresponding to a time when the first portion of the first content item is to be displayed ([0038, 0040, 0067], fig. 5 the portion of the content that requires time shifting is identified);
retrieving, from storage, the identified second content item (fig. 3C); and
causing the identified second content item to be displayed at the user device at the timepoint (fig. 3C, fig. 7A, fig. 5 advertisement is selected to insert). Phillips does not specifically disclose based at least in part on one or more prior user inputs, identifying, from storage, a second content item;
However, Oliveira discloses based at least in part on one or more prior user inputs, identifying, from storage, a second content item ([0034, 0035], fig 3 The user’s selection/rendering of ads adjusts the value associated with the ads. User viewing habits/preferences (ie “prior user inputs”) affects how the items are sorted and presented to the user ). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the user ad selection of Oliveira into the system of Phillips in order to allow the viewer to directly choose the ad that they want to see.
Regarding claim 3, 13, Oliveira discloses wherein the one or more prior user inputs comprises at least one of a prior request to store one or more portions of a content item, a prior selection of a play function with respect to one or more segments of the content item, or a repeated request to view one or more segments of the content item ([0034, 0035]).
Regarding claim 5, 15, Phillips discloses wherein the identifying the second content item further comprises:
determining a first duration of the first portion of the first content item;
determining a second duration of the second content item; and determining that the first duration matches the second duration ([0007]).
Regarding claim 6, 16, Phillips discloses wherein a first media type of the first content item comprises audio and visual content; and wherein a second media type of the first portion of the first content item comprises at least one of audio content or visual content ([0034] Media type represented by video).
Regarding claim 7, 17, Phillips discloses wherein a third media type of the second content item matches the second media type of the first portion of the first content item ([0038] Media type represented by video).
Regarding claim 8, 18, Phillips discloses wherein a third media type of the second content item matches the first media type of the first content item ([0038] Media type represented by video).
Regarding claim 9, 19, Oliveira discloses wherein the second content item is stored in the storage based on receiving a user request to store the second content item ([0014, 0018, 0020]).
Regarding claim 10, 20, Oliveira discloses wherein the second content item is stored in the storage based on determining that more than one prior request was received to view the second content item ([0028] of Oliveira).
Regarding claim 11, 21, Phillips discloses wherein the second content item is retrieved in real time with transmission of the first content item ([0043]).
Claim(s) 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips (US 2017/0374121) in view of Oliveira (US 2008/0010119) in view of Ramakrishnan (US 8,789,119).
Regarding claim 4, 14, Phillips in view of Oliveira does not specifically disclose wherein the determining that transmission of a first portion of the first content item will be restricted is based on metadata associated with one or more portions of the first content item already received in the transmission of the first content item.
However, Rama discloses wherein the determining that transmission of a first portion of the first content item will be restricted is based on metadata associated with one or more portions of the first content item already received in the transmission of the first content item (col. 2 lines 64 – col.3 lines 10). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the metadata detection of Rama into the system of Phillips in view of Oliveira in order to include information about transmission limitations directly into the stream.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL HYUN HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at (571)272-4195. 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.
/MICHAEL H HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426