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 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,224. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For instance, note the following similarities between instant application claim and US Pat. 12,219,224 claims 1 and 3.
Instant Application Claim 1
US Pat. 12,219,224 Claims 1 and 3
A method comprising: detecting an interruption during playing of a segment of a media asset on a user device;
A method comprising: detecting an interruption during playing of a segment of a media asset on a user device; (Claim 1)
determining, by control circuitry, an importance score of the segment based on a user profile associated with the user device;
determining, based on metadata associated with the segment of the media asset, an importance score for the segment; (Claim 1)
wherein the importance score is determined based on a user profile associated with the user device, (Claim 3)
selecting, by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the determining of a high value as the importance score, a selected action to perform, wherein the selected action comprises playing the segment from a position where the interruption occurred; selecting, by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the determining of a non-high value as the importance score, the selected action to perform, wherein the selected action comprises skipping the segment and resuming playing the media asset from a position after the segment; and causing performance of the selected action.
when the importance score is equal to or higher than the first score, identifying as the interruption time threshold, a second time threshold longer than the first time threshold; based on comparing the interruption time threshold with the estimated recovery time, making a continuation determination, wherein the continuation determination comprises determining to skip the segment or to wait to resume presentation of the segment after the interruption subsides; and generating, based on a result of the continuation determination, an instruction to skip the segment or an instruction to wait to resume presentation of the segment after the interruption subsides.
Since claim 1 in the instant application is a broader recitation of claim 1 in Pat. 12,219,224 it would have been obvious to modify claim 1 in Pat. 12,219,224 to get claim 1 in the instant application.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 1.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 3.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 6.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 7.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 1.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 8.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 9.
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 5.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to patented claims 10 and 12.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 10.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 12.
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 15.
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 16.
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 10.
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 17.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 18.
Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 14.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10 ,12-13, 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,924,525. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For instance, note the following similarities between instant application claim and US Pat. 11,924,525 claims 1.
Instant Application Claim 1
US Pat. 11,924,525 Claim 1
A method comprising: detecting an interruption during playing of a segment of a media asset on a user device;
A method comprising: detecting an interruption during playing of a segment of a media asset on a user device;
determining, by control circuitry, an importance score of the segment based on a user profile associated with the user device;
comparing metadata of the segment with a user profile associated with the user device; generating, based on the comparing, an importance score of the segment;
selecting, by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the determining of a high value as the importance score, a selected action to perform, wherein the selected action comprises playing the segment from a position where the interruption occurred; selecting, by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the determining of a non-high value as the importance score, the selected action to perform, wherein the selected action comprises skipping the segment and resuming playing the media asset from a position after the segment; and causing performance of the selected action.
selecting by control circuitry, in response to the generating of a high value as the importance score, a selected action to perform, wherein the selected action is playing the segment from a position where the interruption occurred; selecting by the control circuitry, in response to the generating of a non-high value as the importance score, a selected action to perform, wherein the selected action is skipping the segment and resuming playing the media asset from a position after the segment; and in response to determining that the interruption has concluded, causing performance of the selected action.
Since claim 1 in the instant application is a broader recitation of claim 1 in Pat. 11,924,525 it would have been obvious to modify claim 1 in Pat. 11,924,525 to get claim 1 in the instant application.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 1.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 3.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 4.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 4.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 6.
Claim 8 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 10.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 10.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 12.
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 13.
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 13.
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 15.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 16.
Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds to patented claim 17.
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 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 1, 5, 10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole et al. (US Pub. 2011/0289526) in view of Panchaksharaiah et al. (US Pub. 2018/0310045), herein referenced as Poole and Panchaksharaiah’045, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Poole discloses “A method comprising: detecting an interruption during playing of a segment of a media asset on a user device… ([0002], [0011]-[0012], [0019], [0027], Fig. 1, i.e., detecting an interruption, such as a power outage);
selecting, by the control circuitry…a selected action to perform, wherein the selected action comprises playing the segment from a position where the interruption occurred ([0002], [0017], [0028], [0111]-[0114], i.e., replaying the program from a point corresponding to the interruption);
… and causing performance of the selected action.” ([0002], [0011]-[0012], [0017], [0028], i.e., replaying the program that was being viewed from a point in the program corresponding to the point of interruption when video service resumes).
Poole fails to explicitly disclose determining, by control circuitry, an importance score of the segment based on a user profile associated with the user device; selecting, by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the determining of a high value as the importance score, a selected action to perform… selecting, by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the determining of a non-high value as the importance score, the selected action to perform, wherein the selected action comprises skipping the segment and … playing the media asset from a position after the segment.
Panchaksharaiah’045 teaches the technique of determining, by control circuitry, an importance score of the segment based on a user profile associated with the user device ([0004], [0017]-[0022], [0064], [0078]-[0079], i.e., accessing a user profile and modify the playback of media asset based on whether the user has previously consumed the media asset currently being consumed); selecting, by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the determining of a high value as the importance score, a selected action to perform ([0017]-[0019], [0076]-[0077], Fig. 1, i.e., determining a scene that is very important to the plot of the movie and shifting playback to keep the segment when an interruption occurs)… selecting, by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the determining of a non-high value as the importance score, the selected action to perform, wherein the selected action comprises skipping the segment and … playing the media asset from a position after the segment ([0017]-[0019], [0076]-[0077], Fig. 1, i.e., if an importance score of a segment is below a threshold, then the segment is removed (skipped) from playback. The media guidance application may determine a total duration by which the playback of the media asset has to be shifted back in time for the end time of the given segment to coincide with the start time of the interrupting event).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of determining, by control circuitry, an importance score of the segment based on a user profile associated with the user device; selecting, by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the determining of a high value as the importance score, a selected action to perform… selecting, by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the determining of a non-high value as the importance score, the selected action to perform, wherein the selected action comprises skipping the segment and … playing the media asset from a position after the segment as taught by Panchaksharaiah’045, to improve the video playback system of Poole for the predictable result of modifying playback of a media asset based on an interrupting event such that start time of the interrupting event coincides with a logical point in the media asset ([0002]).
Regarding claim 5, Poole fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the importance score is determined based at least in part on an identification of a category of the segment.”
Panchaksharaiah’045 teaches the technique of providing wherein the importance score is determined based at least in part on an identification of a category of the segment ([0017], [0076], i.e., a scene important to the plot may have associated a high importance score). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the importance score is determined based at least in part on an identification of a category of the segment as taught by Panchaksharaiah’045, to improve the video playback system of Poole for the predictable result of modifying playback of a media asset based important scenes for an enhanced viewing experience.
Regarding claim 10, Poole discloses “A system comprising: input/output circuitry configured to: detect an interruption during playing of a segment of a media asset on a user device; and control circuitry configured to: detect an interruption during playing of a segment of a media asset on a user device… ([0002], [0011]-[0012], [0019], [0027], Fig. 1, i.e., detecting an interruption, such as a power outage);
select, by the control circuitry… a selected action to perform, wherein the selected action comprises playing the segment from a position where the interruption occurred ([0002], [0017], [0028], [0111]-[0114], i.e., replaying the program from a point corresponding to the interruption);
… cause performance of the selected action.” ([0002], [0011]-[0012], [0017], [0028], i.e., replaying the program that was being viewed from a point in the program corresponding to the point of interruption when video service resumes).
Pool fails to explicitly disclose determine, by control circuitry, an importance score of the segment based on a user profile associated with the user device; select, by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the determining of a high value as the importance score, a selected action to perform… select, by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the determining of a non-high value as the importance score, the selected action to perform, wherein the selected action comprises skipping the segment and resuming playing the media asset from a position after the segment.
Panchaksharaiah’045 teaches the technique of determining, by control circuitry, an importance score of the segment based on a user profile associated with the user device ([0004], [0017]-[0022], [0064], [0078]-[0079], i.e., accessing a user profile and modify the playback of media asset based on whether the user has previously consumed the media asset currently being consumed); select, by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the determining of a high value as the importance score, a selected action to perform ([0017]-[0019], [0076]-[0077], Fig. 1, i.e., determining a scene that is very important to the plot of the movie and shifting playback to keep the segment when an interruption occurs) … select, by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the determining of a non-high value as the importance score, the selected action to perform, wherein the selected action comprises skipping the segment and resuming playing the media asset from a position after the segment ([0017]-[0019], [0076]-[0077], Fig. 1, i.e., if an importance score of a segment is below a threshold, then the segment is removed (skipped) from playback. The media guidance application may determine a total duration by which the playback of the media asset has to be shifted back in time for the end time of the given segment to coincide with the start time of the interrupting event).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of determining, by control circuitry, an importance score of the segment based on a user profile associated with the user device; select, by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the determining of a high value as the importance score, a selected action to perform… select, by the control circuitry, based at least in part on the determining of a non-high value as the importance score, the selected action to perform, wherein the selected action comprises skipping the segment and resuming playing the media asset from a position after the segment. as taught by Panchaksharaiah’045, to improve the video playback system of Poole for the predictable result of modifying playback of a media asset based on an interrupting event such that start time of the interrupting event coincides with a logical point in the media asset ([0002]).
Regarding clam 14, claim 14 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 2, 4, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole in view of Panchaksharaiah’045 and in further view of Panchaksharaiah et al. (US Pub. 2017/0332125), herein referenced as Panchaksharaiah’125.
Regarding claim 2, the combination fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the determining the importance score comprises comparing metadata associated with the media asset with data accessed in the user profile.”
Panchaksharaiah’125 teaches the technique of providing wherein the determining the importance score comprises comparing metadata associated with the media asset with data accessed in the user profile ([0013]-[0016], [0040], [0054], [0077], [0080], [0165], [0169], Fig. 7, i.e., identifying important portions of media content based on comparing user profile data with criterion characterizing content and providing catch-up content. In other words, the system determines an “importance score” based on if an event is important to the user or not such as a binary choice of 1 or 0). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the determining the importance score comprises comparing metadata associated with the media asset with data accessed in the user profile as taught by Panchaksharaiah’125, to improve the video playback system of Poole for the predictable result of efficiently identifying important segments of media content to tailor content based on user preferences.
Regarding claim 4, the combination fails to disclose “wherein the importance score is determined based at least in part on one or more of: a length of a scene of the segment, a length of a shot in the segment, presence of dialogue in the segment, presence of a soundtrack in the segment, or presence of an actor in the segment.”
Panchaksharaiah’125 teaches the technique of providing wherein the importance score is determined based at least in part on one or more of: a length of a scene of the segment, a length of a shot in the segment, presence of dialogue in the segment, presence of a soundtrack in the segment, or presence of an actor in the segment ([0013], [0077], [0080], i.e., important events include presence of favorite actor/actress or an actor saying a famous quote). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the importance score is determined based at least in part on one or more of: a length of a scene of the segment, a length of a shot in the segment, presence of dialogue in the segment, presence of a soundtrack in the segment, or presence of an actor in the segment as taught by Panchaksharaiah’125, to improve the video playback system of Poole for the predictable result of efficiently identifying important segments of media content to tailor content based on user preferences.
Regarding clam 11, claim 11 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding clam 13, claim 13 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 3, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole in view of Panchaksharaiah’045 and in further view of Craner et al. (US Pub. 2013/0305290), herein referenced as Craner.
Regarding claim 3, the combination fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the user profile indicates a user preference for a content genre.”
Craner teaches the technique of providing wherein the user profile indicates a user preference for a content genre ([0062]-[0066], Figs. 2-3, i.e., users can select preferred genre). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing wherein the user profile indicates a user preference for a content genre as taught by Craner, to improve the video playback system of Poole for the predictable result of allowing to users to select their preferred genre.
Regarding clam 12, claim 12 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 7-8, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole in view of Panchaksharaiah’045 and in further view of Losey et al. (US Pub. 2018/0301167), herein referenced as Losey.
Regarding claim 7, the combination fails to disclose “generating for display at the user device a notification of skipping of the segment.”
Losey teaches the technique of generating for display at the user device a notification of skipping of the segment ([0105], Fig. 5B, i.e. notification section 526b informs the user of skipped content). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of generating for display at the user device a notification of skipping of the segment as taught by Losey, to improve the video playback system of Poole for the predictable result of providing the user an on-screen notification about any change in circumstance ([0105]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination fails to disclose “generating for display a request to skip; and receiving, based at least in part on the request, a user interface input to the request to skip, wherein the segment is skipped in response to the receiving the user interface input to skip.”
Losey teaches the technique of generating for display a request to skip; and receiving, based at least in part on the request, a user interface input to the request to skip, wherein the segment is skipped in response to the receiving the user interface input to skip ([0093], Fig. 5B, i.e., a skip option 510a is displayed for the user to skip media content). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of generating for display a request to skip; and receiving, based at least in part on the request, a user interface input to the request to skip, wherein the segment is skipped in response to the receiving the user interface input to skip as taught by Losey, to improve the video playback system of Poole for the predictable result of providing the user the convenience of skipping undesirable content.
Regarding clam 16, claim 16 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding clam 17, claim 17 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 8.
Claims 9, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poole in view of Panchaksharaiah’045 and in further view of Dmitriev et al. (US Pub. 2011/0023060), herein referenced Dmitriev.
Regarding claim 9, the combination fails to disclose “receiving a user interface input from a computing device after the segment was skipped; and updating the user profile used in generating the importance score of the segment.”
Dimitriev teaches the technique of receiving a user interface input from a computing device after the segment was skipped; and updating the user profile used in generating the importance score of the segment ([0006]-[0011], i.e., updating a user profile when a user skips an advertisement such that the system may select other advertisements that are deemed to be more like advertisements the user has watched and less like those the user has skipped). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of receiving a user interface input from a computing device after the segment was skipped; and updating the user profile used in generating the importance score of the segment as taught by Dmitriev, to improve the video playback system of Poole for the predictable result of efficiently tailoring content to user preferences based on user feedback.
Regarding clam 18, claim 18 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 February 6, 2026