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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 11 and 16 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.
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 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 12-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (Pub No US 2017/0195743) in view of Klappert (Pub No US 2013/0029762). Hereinafter, referenced as Wood and Klappert, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Wood discloses a system comprising:
a storage media configured to maintain media content requested by media devices to render for viewing (Paragraphs [0036] [0037[ figure 1; audio/video content on content source 130);
a media content server (Paragraphs [0037] [0038] figure 1; platform server device 120 distributes requested content) configured to distribute a video stream of the media content having an ad space to a media device of a viewer when requested, the media content comprising one or more advertisement pods that each include one or more advertisements owned by one or more advertisers (Paragraphs [0042] - [0044] [0091] figure 4; interstitial media content IMC, e.g. advertisement pod, delivered to the user along with the requested content);
an advertisement decision service (Figure 6) configured to: receive bids from the one or more advertisers for placing the one or more advertisements in the ad space (Paragraphs [0086] [0086] figure 6; receive advertiser bid 602);
wherein the ad space is awarded to the advertiser with a bid having the highest purchase price and the advertiser’s advertisement is scheduled for viewing in the ad space (Paragraphs [0086] [0086] figure 6; determine and designate winning bid 608 from bidding advertiser 602);
an advertisement skip service (Figure 7) configured to: display at the media device an option to skip the advertisement for payment of a predetermined sum of money (Paragraph [0090] figure 7; present the viewer an option to skip the interstitial media 704; e.g. advertisement, in exchange of a transaction fee);
receive a skip command from the media device to skip the advertisement (Paragraphs [0090] [0094] figure 7; receive a request to skip the advertisement 706);
process payment for the predetermined sum of money (Paragraph [0092]; transaction fee to skip the advertisement);
and suppress the advertisement (Paragraph [0095] figure 7; stop play of the advertisement content 708);
wherein the predetermined sum of money is dynamically determined as a micropayment (Paragraph [0092];e.g. transaction fee may be variable), based on the purchase price of the ad space (Paragraph [0091]; the fee can be based on an amount bid by a content provider to have the IMC placed, e.g. ad), a profile of the viewer (e.g. viewer preference to skip ads) and popularity of the media content (Paragraphs [0069] [0092]; bid amount to skip commercials may be lower and based on whether the skip command is related to a single episode or the user plans to view a series of episodes of the show, e.g. popularity);
However, it is noted that Wood is silent to explicitly disclose a secondary content generator configured to: determine a location of the ad space within the media content for which the advertisement is suppressed; perform a semantic analysis of the media content; generate secondary content based on the semantic analysis; and insert the secondary content in the ad space.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Klappert discloses a secondary content generator configured to: determine a location of the ad space within the media content for which the advertisement is suppressed; perform a semantic analysis of the media content (Paragraph [0031]; supplementary content corresponding to the amount of time created by the skipped advertisement);
generate secondary content based on the semantic analysis; and insert the secondary content in the ad space (Paragraph [0031]; Wherein the supplementary content to replace the skipped advertisement may include content associated to the television program, e.g. behind the scenes documentary, interviews, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Klappert, for the predictable result of implementing an advertisement skipping mechanism managing the display of advertisements in a manner that is beneficial to users (e.g., viewers), advertisers, and service providers (Klappert – paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Wood and Klappert disclose the system of claim 1; moreover, Wood discloses that the media content is one of a recorded program and a live program (Paragraphs [0069]; e.g. movies, television series, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Wood and Klappert disclose the system of claim 2; moreover, Wood discloses that the program is buffered (Paragraphs [0062] [0063]; requested content is buffered).
However, it is noted that Wood is silent to explicitly disclose that the program is a live program.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Klappert discloses that the program is a live program (Paragraphs [0031] [0143]; skipping advertisement during live broadcasts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Klappert, for the predictable result of allowing the user to skip advertisement in all types of content presentations, increasing the marketability of the product.
Regarding claim 5, Wood and Klappert disclose the system of claim 1; however, it is noted that Wood is silent to explicitly disclose that the secondary content is selected from a group consisting: behind-the-scenes footage of the media content, trivia, interviews and personalized recommendations.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Klappert discloses that the secondary content is selected from a group consisting: behind-the-scenes footage of the media content, trivia, interviews and personalized recommendations (Paragraph [0031]; Wherein the supplementary content to replace the skipped advertisement may include content associated to the television program, e.g. behind the scenes documentary, interviews, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Klappert, for the predictable result of implementing an advertisement skipping mechanism managing the display of advertisements in a manner that is beneficial to users (e.g., viewers), advertisers, and service providers (Klappert – paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 8, Wood and Klappert disclose all the limitations of claim 8; therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Wood and Klappert disclose all the limitations of claim 9; therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Wood and Klappert disclose all the limitations of claim 12; therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Wood and Klappert disclose all the limitations of claim 13; therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Wood and Klappert disclose the system of claim 8; however, it is noted that Wood is silent to explicitly disclose that the advertisement skip service transmits a notification to the secondary content generator identifying a suppressed ad space, and the secondary content generator inserts secondary content in the suppressed ad space.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Klappert discloses that the advertisement skip service transmits a notification to the secondary content generator identifying a suppressed ad space (Paragraph [0031]; supplementary content corresponding to the amount of time created by the skipped advertisement), and the secondary content generator inserts secondary content in the suppressed ad space (Paragraph [0031]; Wherein the supplementary content to replace the skipped advertisement may include content associated to the television program, e.g. behind the scenes documentary, interviews, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Klappert, for the predictable result of implementing an advertisement skipping mechanism managing the display of advertisements in a manner that is beneficial to users (e.g., viewers), advertisers, and service providers (Klappert – paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 15, Wood and Klappert disclose all the limitations of claim 15; therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Wood and Klappert disclose all the limitations of claim 17; therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Wood and Klappert disclose all the limitations of claim 18; therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Wood and Klappert disclose the method of claim 15; however, it is noted that Wood is silent to explicitly disclose that the semantic analysis is based on one or more of: genre of the media content, mood of the media content and a profile of the viewer.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Klappert discloses that the semantic analysis is based on one or more of: genre of the media content, mood of the media content and a profile of the viewer (Paragraph [0031]; Wherein the supplementary content to replace the skipped advertisement may include content associated to the television program, e.g. behind the scenes documentary, interviews, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Klappert, for the predictable result of implementing an advertisement skipping mechanism managing the display of advertisements in a manner that is beneficial to users (e.g., viewers), advertisers, and service providers (Klappert – paragraph [0005]).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood and Klappert further in view of Jaschke (Pub No US 2007/0130005). Hereinafter, referenced as Jaschke.
Regarding claim 4, Wood and Klappert disclose the system of claim 1; however, it is noted that Wood is silent to explicitly disclose that in the event that a plurality advertisers bid an identical highest purchase price, the ad space is awarded to the advertiser with the earliest bid.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Jaschke discloses that in the event that a plurality advertisers bid an identical highest purchase price, the ad space is awarded to the advertiser with the earliest bid (Paragraphs [0070] [0071]; if two advertisers have the same highest bid, the earlies entry becomes the winning advertisers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood and Klappert by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Jaschke, for the predictable result of determining winning advertisers in a first come first serve policy manner, ensuring fairness in distributing limited resources.
Regarding claim 10, Wood, Klappert and Jaschke disclose all the limitations of claim 10; therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 4.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood and Klappert further in view of Walter et al. (Pub No US 2008/0109840). Hereinafter, referenced as Walter.
Regarding claim 7, Wood and Klappert disclose the system of claim 1; however, it is noted that Wood is silent to explicitly disclose when the media content is a recorded program, the secondary content generator is disabled.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Walter discloses when the media content is a recorded program, the secondary content generator is disabled (Paragraphs [0032] [0037] [0038 figures 6A and 7; the user may set their preferences to skip all advertisements on DVR-recorded video broadcast content 633, effectively disabling the replacement of skipped ads 644, e.g. advertisement free programming 935).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood and Klappert by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Walter, for the predictable result of allowing the viewer to be able to record advertisement free programming without any commercials (Walter – paragraph [0050]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood and Klappert further in view of Kresh (Patent No. 12,495,184). Hereinafter, referenced as Kresh.
Regarding claim 20, Wood and Klappert disclose the method of claim 15; moreover, Klappert discloses generation of secondary content (Paragraph [0031]; Wherein the supplementary content to replace the skipped advertisement may include content associated to the television program, e.g. behind the scenes documentary, interviews, etc.).
However, it is noted that Wood is silent to explicitly disclose that secondary content is generated using artificial intelligence.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Kresh discloses that secondary content is generated using artificial intelligence (Col. 4 lines 13-38, col. 9 lines 35-59; implementing machine learning algorithms, e.g. artificial intelligence processing techniques, to determine commercials to skip, commercials of interest to the viewer, and replacement commercials 512).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Kresh, for the predictable result of implementing well-known artificial neural network mechanisms that allow for fast and efficient data processing techniques.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm EST..
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424