DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,206,961 in view of Gibbon et al. (US 2015/0143436).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application recites similar features and limitations as the patented application.
The instant App 18/981,233 and Patent 12,206,961 both recite features regarding a plurality of portions of content making up a storyline and creating a summary segment from either missed portions to requested portions of content.
The instant App 18/981,233 additionally recites the specific feature of: “identifying that engagement with a first segment, from the plurality of segments, is lower than a threshold”.
Gibbon teaches the specific feature of: “identifying that engagement with a first segment, from the plurality of segments, is lower than a threshold” (i.e. missed portion is a missed engagement) (p. 0017, 0024-0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided an engagement threshold as taught by Gibbon to the Patent of 12,206,961 to track missed portion of content within a storyline (p. 0017).
Present Application 18/981,233
Patent 12,206,961
1. A method comprising:
identifying a first content item generated for display on a user device, wherein the first content item includes a plurality of segments that collectively comprises a storyline;
based on identifying that engagement with a first segment, from the plurality of segments, is lower than a threshold:
identifying a first summary associated with the first segment; identifying a previously consumed second content item related to the storyline;
based on determining that the second content item should be refreshed:
identifying a second summary associated with the second content item; and
generating for display the first summary and the second summary.
11. The system comprising:
input/output circuitry;
processing circuitry configured to:
identify a first content item generated for display on a user device, wherein the first content item includes a plurality of segments that collectively comprises a storyline;
based on identifying that engagement with a first segment, from the plurality of segments, is lower than a threshold:
identify a first summary associated with the first segment;
identify a previously consumed second content item related to the storyline;
based on determining that the second content item should be refreshed: identify a second summary associated with the second content item; and
wherein the input/output circuitry is configured to:
generate for display the first summary and the second summary.
1. A method for summarizing missed portions of storylines in a content item, the method comprising:
identifying, within the content item, a plurality of storylines, wherein each storyline comprises a respective plurality of portions, each portion of the respective plurality of portions comprising a part of the storyline, and wherein the portions of the respective plurality of portions are interwoven with other portions of other storylines;
identifying a storyline of content being generated for presentation by a user equipment;
identifying portions of the storyline already presented by the user equipment; comparing the portions of the storyline already presented by the user equipment to a user interaction log to determine content missed by a user;
retrieving a storyline-specific summary of portions of the content missed by the user comprising the identified storyline; and
generating, for presentation, the retrieved storyline-specific summary.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying watched content related to the identified storyline;
determining the watched content should be refreshed based on when the watched content was consumed;
retrieving a second storyline-specific summary of the watched content; and
generating, for presentation, the retrieved second storyline-specific summary.
11. A system for summarizing missed portions of storylines in a content item, the system comprising:
control circuitry configured to:
identify, within the content item, a plurality of storylines, wherein each storyline comprises a respective plurality of portions, each portion of the respective plurality of portions comprising a part of the storyline, and wherein the portions of the respective plurality of portions are interwoven with other portions of other storylines;
identify a storyline of content being generated for presentation by a user equipment; identify portions of the storyline already presented by the user equipment;
compare the portions of the storyline already presented by the user equipment to a user interaction log to determine content missed by a user;
retrieve a storyline-specific summary of portions of the content missed by the user comprising the identified storyline; and
generate, for presentation, the retrieved storyline-specific summary.
19. The system of claim 11, the control circuitry further configured to:
identify watched content related to the identified storyline;
determine the watched content should be refreshed based on when the watched content was consumed;
retrieve a second storyline-specific summary of the watched content; and
generate, for presentation, the retrieved second storyline-specific summary.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbon et al. (US 2015/0143436) in view of Killick (US 10003849).
Claim 1, Gibbon teaches a method comprising:
identifying a first content (i.e. episode) item generated for display on a user device (i.e. video program), wherein the first content item includes a plurality of segments that collectively comprises a storyline (p. 0012, 0024-0028);
based on identifying that engagement with a first segment, from the plurality of segments, is lower than a threshold (i.e. missed portion) (p. 0017, 0024-0028):
identifying a first summary associated with the first segment (i.e. synopsis of missed portion) (p. 0024-0028);
identifying a previously consumed second content item (i.e. passed episodes that require refresher) related to the storyline (p. 0029-0030);
identifying a second summary associated with the second content item (i.e. synopsis of past episodes) (p. 0028-0030); and
generating for display the first summary (i.e. missed portion synopsis) and the second summary (i.e. past episodes synopsis) (p. 0026-0030).
Gibbon is not entirely clear in teaching a method comprising:
wherein the identification includes a time of consumption of the second content item;
determining that the second content item should be refreshed based on the identification that it was previously consumed as reflected by its time of consumption.
Killick teaches a method comprising:
wherein the identification includes a time of consumption (i.e. last viewed time) of the second content item (i.e. VOC content item) (col. 13, lines 6-21 co. 16, lines 28-51, claim 8);
determining that the second content item should be refreshed (i.e. updated) based on the identification that it was previously consumed (i.e. last viewed) as reflected by its time of consumption (col. 13, lines 6-21 co. 16, lines 28-51, claim 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date on the present invention to have provided a last viewed content item consumption time as taught by Killick to the system of Gibbon to provide a record of previous views (co. 16, lines 28-51).
Claim 2, Gibbon teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user device is a first user device (i.e. STB) and the first summary and the second summary is generated for display on a second user device (i.e. synopsis can be displayed on the portable device) (p. 0026-0030).
Claim 3, Gibbon teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first summary and the second summary are simultaneously generated for display (i.e. synopsis for a missed portion is generated so as to not disrupted the main program being watched) (p. 0012, 0017, 0024-0026).
Claim 4, Gibbon teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating for display the first summary and the second summary further comprises:
generating for display the first summary via a first medium (i.e. presentation type, video) (p. 0023); and
generating for display the second summary via a second medium, wherein the first medium is different from the second medium (i.e. presentation type, text) (p. 0023).
Claim 5, Gibbon teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the first medium comprises video, and the second medium comprises text (i.e. presentation type, video, text) (p. 0023).
Claim 6, Gibbon teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying the previously consumed second content item related to the storyline comprises:
retrieving metadata of the storyline (i.e. descriptive metadata) and metadata of a plurality of previously consumed content items (i.e. whether user watched or didn’t watched media) (p. 0018, 0020, 0029);
comparing the metadata of the storyline and the metadata of the plurality of previously consumed content items (i.e. profile is set for keeping abreast to all previous content, compares metadata for content watched and unwatched) (p. 0018, 0020, 0029); and
identifying, based on the comparing, the second content item from the plurality of previously consumed content items (i.e. comparing upcoming episode to previously viewed episodes identifies which previous episodes need to be summarized) (p. 0029).
Claim 7, Gibbon teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the second content item should be refreshed comprises:
identifying a time of consumption of the second content item (i.e. priority of synopsis based on length) (p. 0021); and
determining that a period of time between the time of consumption and a current time exceeds a threshold time period (i.e. the longer the portion is threshold) (p. 0021).
Claim 8, Gibbon teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the second content item should be refreshed comprises:
identifying a plurality of portions of content consumed after the second content item (i.e. user views episode 1-14, second content item is episode 1, the next episodes are further content consumed) (p. 0029); and
determining that a quantity of the plurality of portions of content that are related to the second content item (i.e. episodes 2-14 are related to episode 1) is less than a threshold quantity (i.e. profile of user has preferences for not receiving a synopsis) (p. 0028-0029).
Claim 9, Gibbon teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying that engagement with the first segment is lower than the threshold comprises:
comparing segments of the plurality of segments that have already been generated for display on the user device to an interaction log associated with the user device (i.e. set top box detected portable device of user and the minutes of missed time) (p. 0024-0028).
Claim 10, Gibbon teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first summary is generated for display without generating for display the second summary based on determining that the second content item should not be refreshed (i.e. profile of user has preferences for not receiving a synopsis for past episodes but will receive missed portions) (p. 0024-0029).
Claim 11 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 1.
Claim 12 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 2.
Claim 13 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 3.
Claim 14 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 4.
Claim 15 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 5.
Claim 16 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 6.
Claim 17 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 7.
Claim 18 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 8.
Claim 19 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 9.
Claim 20 is analyzed and interpreted as an apparatus of claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSHFIKH I ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1710. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00PM-9:00PM.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 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.
MUSHFIKH I. ALAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2426
/MUSHFIKH I ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 3/18/2026