Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 1/17/2025. Claims 1-48 are pending for examination, the rejection cited as stated below.
Double Patenting
2. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
3. Claims 1-48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-34 of U S Patent 12212791 (hereafter “Patent’791”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of the independent claim 1 of the instant application are claimed in claim 1 of Patent’791, i.e., claim 1 of Patent’791 is more specific. The corresponding dependent claims 2-12 have exactly the same limitations except for those of the independent claim, compared to dependent claims 6, 9,7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 of Patent’791 respectively. Thus the invention of claims 1, 6, 9,7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 of Patent’791 is in effect a "species" of the "generic" invention of claims 1-12 of the instant application respectively. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claims 13-48 are similarly rejected.
4. Claims 1-5, 9-17, 21-29, 33-41 and 45-48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of US Patent (US RE48546 which is a reissue patent for Patent 9762967, hereafter “Patent’546”) in view of Briggs et al (US 8312476, hereafter Briggs) and Ozer et al (US 20040243470, hereafter Ozer).
As to claim 1, Claim 3 of Patent’546 discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device based on sending a request indicating content, a set of time-based metadata associated with a timeline of events in the content (Claim 1, “determining, based on the playback of at least the portion of the media content, an audio fingerprint; transmitting a request for metadata, wherein the request comprises the determined audio fingerprint; receiving, in response to the request, time-based metadata associated with the media content”),
wherein a start time associated with output of the content facilitates synchronization of the set of time-based metadata with the timeline of events in the content, and wherein the set of time-based metadata indicates an available time during the output of the content (claim 1, “wherein the time-based metadata comprises a plurality of time stamps that are triggerable at different instances of a timeline of the media content, and wherein one or more time stamps of the plurality of time stamps are associated with corresponding metadata content; receiving, based on the playback of the at least the portion of the media content, an indication of occurrence of one or more events in the timeline of the media content; and triggering, based on the indication of occurrence of the one or more events, a sequence of time stamps of the plurality of time stamps, wherein the triggered sequence of time stamps is synchronized with the occurrence of the one or more events in the timeline of the media content; wherein triggering the sequence of time stamps causes determining associated information for one or more time stamps of the sequence of time stamps, and rendering at least a portion of the metadata content based on the associated information”);
receiving an indication of a content resource that facilitates access to supplemental content for output at the available time slot (claim 1, “wherein the associated information for one or more of the time stamps of the sequence of time stamps comprises a link to the portion of the metadata content”; and claim 2, “the rendered portion of the metadata content comprises an interactive user feature configured to be displayed for user input at a particular instance in the timeline of the media content”); and
causing output, during the available time slot, of at least a portion of the supplemental content (claim 3, “The method of claim 2, further comprising linking the interactive user feature to a service to enable the user to purchase a preselected item from an online store”).
Claim 3 of Patent’546, however, does not expressly disclose that the available time includes available time slot or that the supplemental content is selected based on campaign data indicating one or more timing parameters for outputting the supplemental content.
Briggs discloses available time slots (see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 1 as set forth below). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 3 of Patent’546 with Briggs. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to indicate a duration of an advertisement (Briggs, col. 4).
Ozer discloses supplemental content being selected based on campaign data indicating one or more timing parameters for outputting the supplemental content (see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 1 as set forth below). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 3 of Patent’546 with Ozer. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to select advertisements according to the advertiser’s frequency cap requirement (Ozer, [0021]-[0022]).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 1, wherein processor and memory are implied.
As to claim 25, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 37, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 2-5, 9-12, 14-17, 21-24, 26-29, 33-36, 38-41 and 45-48, see citation the 103 rejections to the respective claims as set forth below.
5. Claims 6-8, 18-20, 30-32 and 42-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of Patent’546 in view of Briggs and Ozer, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murakami (JP2010219875, Google Patent translation is relied upon).
As to claim 6, Claim 3 of Patent’546 in view of Briggs and Ozer discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the supplemental content is further based on a profile associated with a user of the computing device. Murakami discloses a concept for supplemental content to be based on a profile associated with a user of a computing device (see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 6 below). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 3 of Patent’546 in view of Briggs and Ozer with Murakami. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to select advertisements according to a viewer’s viewing history (Murakami, pages 1-2, claims 1-9).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 30, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 42, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 7, Claim 3 of Patent’546 in view of Briggs, Ozer and Murakami discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising sending the profile associated with the user of the computing device to a network service configured to select the supplemental content (see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 7 below).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 31, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 43, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Claim 3 of Patent’546 in view of Briggs, Ozer and Murakami discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the profile is based at least in part on at least one of:
content that the user previously viewed or content that has previously been viewed on the computing device (see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 7 below); prior supplemental content that the user previously interacted with on a prior viewing of prior content; a type of the computing device; or demographic information associated with the user of the computing device.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 32, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 44, see similar rejection to claim 8.
***-----------***
6. Claims 1-5, 9-17, 21-29, 33-41 and 45-48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 10306324 (hereafter “Patent’324”) in view of Briggs et al (US 8312476, hereafter Briggs) and Ozer et al (US 20040243470, hereafter Ozer).
As to claim 1, Claim 1 of Patent’324 discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device based on sending a request indicating content, a set of time-based metadata associated with a timeline of events in the content (claim 1, “receiving, by a computing device, an indication of playback of media content, wherein the indication of playback of the media content is associated with a playback device; determining, based on the indication of playback of the media content, one or more events in the media content for which time-based metadata is available; determining, based on the one or more events, metadata comprising time-based metadata that corresponds to the one or more events in the media content, wherein the time-based metadata comprises a plurality of time stamps that are triggerable at different points of a timeline of the media content, wherein one or more time stamps of the plurality of time stamps are associated with corresponding metadata content, and wherein the metadata data indicates a timeline of the media content; and transmitting, to the playback device, the time-based metadata,”),
wherein a start time associated with output of the content facilitates synchronization of the set of time-based metadata with the timeline of events in the content, and wherein the set of time-based metadata indicates an available time during the output of the content (claim 1, “wherein the time-based metadata comprises a plurality of time stamps that are triggerable at different points of a timeline of the media content, wherein one or more time stamps of the plurality of time stamps are associated with corresponding metadata content, and wherein the metadata data indicates a timeline of the media content… wherein the playback device is configured to trigger a sequence of time stamps of the plurality of time stamps of the time-based metadata, wherein the triggered sequence of time stamps is synchronized with occurrence of one or more events in the timeline of the media content”);
receiving an indication of a content resource that facilitates access to supplemental content for output at the available time slot (claim 1, “wherein triggering the sequence of time stamps causes the playback device to determine associated information for one or more time stamps of the sequence of time stamps and output at least a portion of the metadata content based on the associated information.”); and
causing output, during the available time slot, of at least a portion of the supplemental content (claim 1, “wherein triggering the sequence of time stamps causes the playback device to determine associated information for one or more time stamps of the sequence of time stamps and output at least a portion of the metadata content based on the associated information.”).
Claim 1 of Patent’324, however, does not expressly disclose that the available time includes available time slot or that the supplemental content is selected based on campaign data indicating one or more timing parameters for outputting the supplemental content.
Briggs discloses available time slots (see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 1 as set forth below). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 1 of Patent’324 with Briggs. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to indicate a duration of an advertisement (Briggs, col. 4).
Ozer discloses supplemental content being selected based on campaign data indicating one or more timing parameters for outputting the supplemental content (see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 1 as set forth below). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 1 of Patent’324 with Ozer. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to select advertisements according to the advertiser’s frequency cap requirement (Ozer, [0021]-[0022]).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 1, wherein processor and memory are implied.
As to claim 25, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 37, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 2-5, 9-12, 14-17, 21-24, 26-29, 33-36, 38-41 and 45-48, see citation the 103 rejections to the respective claims as set forth below.
7. Claims 6-8, 18-20, 30-32 and 42-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent’324 in view of Briggs and Ozer, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murakami (JP2010219875, Google Patent translation is relied upon).
As to claim 6, Claim 1 of Patent’324 in view of Briggs and Ozer discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the supplemental content is further based on a profile associated with a user of the computing device. Murakami discloses a concept for supplemental content to be based on a profile associated with a user of a computing device (see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 6 below). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 1 of Patent’324 in view of Briggs and Ozer with Murakami. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to select advertisements according to a viewer’s viewing history (Murakami, pages 1-2, claims 1-9).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 30, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 42, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 7, Claim 1 of Patent’324 in view of Briggs, Ozer and Murakami discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising sending the profile associated with the user of the computing device to a network service configured to select the supplemental content (see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 7 below).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 31, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 43, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Claim 1 of Patent’324 in view of Briggs, Ozer and Murakami discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the profile is based at least in part on at least one of:
content that the user previously viewed or content that has previously been viewed on the computing device (see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 7 below); prior supplemental content that the user previously interacted with on a prior viewing of prior content; a type of the computing device; or demographic information associated with the user of the computing device.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 32, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 44, see similar rejection to claim 8.
****---------****
8. Claims 1-5, 9-17, 21-29, 33-41 and 45-48 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of co-pending application 16281229 (claim set submitted on 4/6/2026, hereafter “Application’229”) in view of Briggs et al (US 8312476, hereafter Briggs) and Ozer et al (US 20040243470, hereafter Ozer).
As to claim 1, Claim 5 of Application’229 discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device based on sending a request indicating content, a set of time-based metadata associated with a timeline of events in the content (claim 5’s parent claim 2, “detecting a plurality of events in media content; and sending, by a computing device and to an output device, in an order based on audio information received by the computing device from the output device, a plurality of pieces of time-based metadata, wherein each piece of time-based metadata, of the plurality of pieces of time-based metadata, comprises a timestamp corresponding to an event, of the plurality of events, wherein each piece of time-based metadata is configured to facilitate output of interactive supplemental content by the output device during output of the event in the media content”),
wherein a start time associated with output of the content facilitates synchronization of the set of time-based metadata with the timeline of events in the content, and wherein the set of time-based metadata indicates an available time during the output of the content (claim 5’s patent claim 2, “wherein each piece of time-based metadata, of the plurality of pieces of time-based metadata, comprises a timestamp corresponding to an event, of the plurality of events, wherein each piece of time-based metadata is configured to facilitate output of interactive supplemental content by the output device during output of the event in the media content”);
receiving an indication of a content resource that facilitates access to supplemental content for output at the available time slot (claim 5, “wherein each piece of time-based metadata, of the plurality of pieces of time-based metadata, causes the output device to retrieve the interactive supplemental content associated with the event in the media content at a point in time indicated by the timestamp from the computing device”); and
causing output, during the available time slot, of at least a portion of the supplemental content (claim 5, “wherein each piece of time-based metadata, of the plurality of pieces of time-based metadata, causes the output device to retrieve the interactive supplemental content associated with the event in the media content at a point in time indicated by the timestamp from the computing device”).
Claim 5 of Application’229, however, does not expressly disclose that the available time includes available time slot or that the supplemental content is selected based on campaign data indicating one or more timing parameters for outputting the supplemental content.
Briggs discloses available time slots (see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 1 as set forth below). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 5 of Application’229 with Briggs. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to indicate a duration of an advertisement (Briggs, col. 4).
Ozer discloses supplemental content being selected based on campaign data indicating one or more timing parameters for outputting the supplemental content (see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 1 as set forth below). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 5 of Application’229 with Ozer. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to select advertisements according to the advertiser’s frequency cap requirement (Ozer, [0021]-[0022]).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 1, wherein processor and memory are implied.
As to claim 25, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 37, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 2-5, 9-12, 14-17, 21-24, 26-29, 33-36, 38-41 and 45-48, see citation the 103 rejections to the respective claims as set forth below.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
9. Claims 6-8, 18-20, 30-32 and 42-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Application’229 in view of Briggs and Ozer, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murakami (JP2010219875, Google Patent translation is relied upon).
As to claim 6, Claim 5 of Application’229 in view of Briggs and Ozer discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the supplemental content is further based on a profile associated with a user of the computing device. Murakami discloses a concept for supplemental content to be based on a profile associated with a user of a computing device (see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 6 below). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Claim 5 of Application’229 in view of Briggs and Ozer with Murakami. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to select advertisements according to a viewer’s viewing history (Murakami, pages 1-2, claims 1-9).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 30, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 42, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 7, Claim 5 of Application’229 in view of Briggs, Ozer and Murakami discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising sending the profile associated with the user of the computing device to a network service configured to select the supplemental content (see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 7 below).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 31, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 43, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Claim 5 of Application’229 in view of Briggs, Ozer and Murakami discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the profile is based at least in part on at least one of:
content that the user previously viewed or content that has previously been viewed on the computing device (see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 7 below); prior supplemental content that the user previously interacted with on a prior viewing of prior content; a type of the computing device; or demographic information associated with the user of the computing device.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 32, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 44, see similar rejection to claim 8.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
11. Claims 25-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claim 25 is drawn to functional descriptive material recorded on a computer-readable medium. However, the specification does not define or exemplify “computer-readable medium” that limits to a non-transitory medium. The examiner presumes for the sake of examination that the recited term “computer-readable medium" comprises both transitory and non-transitory medium.
“A transitory, propagating signal … is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.” (In re Petrus A.C.M. Nuijten; Fed Cir, 2006-1371, 9/20/2007).
Because the full scope of the claim as properly read in light of the disclosure appears to encompass non-statutory subject matter, the claim as a whole is non-statutory. The examiner suggests amending the claim to include the disclosed non-transitory computer readable storage media, while at the same time excluding the transitory media such as signals, carrier waves, etc. Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure. Claims 26-36 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
13. Claims 1-5, 9-17, 21-29, 33-41 and 45-48 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Briggs et al (US 8312486, hereafter Briggs) in view of Ozer et al (US 20040243470, hereafter Ozer).
As to claim 1, Briggs discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device based on sending a request indicating content, a set of time-based metadata associated with a timeline of events in the content (Fig. 2, the Video Player 108 is a computing device that “Receive Video 210” from the Video Server 104, based on sending the “Request Video 204” message to the Video Server 104, wherein the received and then displayed Video contains Cue Points as shown in step 214. See claim 1, “the time for each respective cue point contained within cue point metadata” and claim 2, “wherein the cue point metadata is transmitted either with at least a portion of the video production or separate from the video production”. The cue points metadata are associated with a timeline of event in the video content, see col. 5, paragraph 1, “FIG. 6 exemplifies how cue points trigger pre-defined advertising events stored and indexed with metadata in the ad server or other database”),
wherein a start time associated with output of the content facilitates synchronization of the set of time-based metadata with the timeline of events in the content (see claim 1, “the plurality of pre-defined cue points representing a time at which an advertisement is to be displayed relative to a time of the video production being played, the time for each respective cue point contained within cue point metadata”; see also claim 2, “wherein the cue point metadata is transmitted either with at least a portion of the video production or separate from the video production”, disclosing that the metadata can be separate from the video content. Here, the start time at which an advertisement is to be displayed is relative to a time of the video production being played, therefore is associated with output of the content and facilitates synchronization of the cue point metadata with the timeline of the cue point events in the content), and wherein the set of time-based metadata indicates an available time slot during the output of the content (see col. 5, paragraph 1, “FIG. 6 exemplifies how cue points trigger pre-defined advertising events stored and indexed with metadata in the ad server or other database”; see col. 4, the cue point metadata table shows entries of cue points in the metadata, wherein each cue point entry contains “time”, “cue point name”, “action”, “duration”, and “URL path”, wherein time and duration for each cue point constitute an available time slot during the output of the content);
receiving an indication of a content resource that facilitates access to supplemental content for output at the available time slot (Fig. 2, once a cue point is triggered, the ad is requested, and in step 224, “Display Ad and link as overlay on video”, and in step 226, “Create calling cue point for ad/link and display with ad icon/logo in timeline below video”. See col. 5, lines 45-55, “In step 222, the video player receives the ad with an interactive link which a user/viewer may select and click on to obtain further information about the product being advertised, and optionally purchase same. The ad is then displayed as either or both an ad with the link as an overlay on the video production in step 224, or in step 226 as a calling cue point for the ad and link in an icon or logo in a timeline below the video production”); and
causing output, during the available time slot, of at least a portion of the supplemental content (See col. 5, lines 45-55, “In step 222, the video player receives the ad with an interactive link which a user/viewer may select and click on to obtain further information about the product being advertised, and optionally purchase same. The ad is then displayed as either or both an ad with the link as an overlay on the video production in step 224, or in step 226 as a calling cue point for the ad and link in an icon or logo in a timeline below the video production).
Briggs, however, does not expressly disclose wherein the supplemental content is selected based on campaign data indicating one or more timing parameters for outputting the supplemental content.
Ozer discloses supplemental content being selected based on campaign data indicating one or more timing parameters for outputting the supplemental content ([0021], “The advertisement availability data may also define limits on the number of times an advertisement can be presented to a given user population (a "frequency cap"). The frequency cap can, for example, as set by the advertiser. For example, an advertiser may want its advertisement or campaign to be presented to a specific user population no more than fifty times out of two-hundred requested impressions for the advertisement during the time period. The advertiser may want to limit the number of impressions to the same user population for numerous reasons. For example, the advertiser may want the advertisement to be shown to multiple user populations to reach a diverse audience”; [0022], “The solution data are generated to account for the frequency caps placed on the advertisements by the advertisers. For example, if an advertiser specifies that an advertisement is not to be presented to user population x.sub.1 more than ten times and user population x.sub.2 more than five times, then the solution data will not define allocations of the advertisement in a manner that violates the specified frequency caps. Once generated, the solution data are used by an advertisement allocation system to serve advertisements for impressions”. Here, the frequency cap is a timing parameter in the campaign data indicating that displaying of the advertisement to a user group cannot exceed the maximum number during the time period, and wherein selecting the advertisement is based on such a timing parameter, e.g. according to and not to violate the frequency cap parameter).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Briggs with Ozer. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to select advertisements according to the advertiser’s frequency cap requirement (Ozer, [0021]-[0022]).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 1, wherein processor and memory are implied.
As to claim 25, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 37, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 2, Briggs in view of Ozer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the set of time-based metadata comprises a start time of the available time slot, an end time of the available time slot, and a duration of the available time slot (Briggs, col. 4, the cue point metadata table shows entries of cue points in the metadata, wherein each cue point entry contains “time”, “cue point name”, “action”, “duration”, and “URL path”, wherein “duration” is a duration of the available time slot, “time” is a start time of the available time slot, and an end time is comprised as a combination of start time and duration, i.e., as being an addition of start time and duration. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific format for the metadata to comprise an end time. See also claim 1, “the plurality of pre-defined cue points representing a time at which an advertisement is to be displayed relative to a time of the video production being played, the time for each respective cue point contained within cue point metadata”).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 26, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 38, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Briggs in view of Ozer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the indication of the content resource comprises receiving an indication to retrieve at least one supplemental content item from a remote source (Fig. 2, steps 216 to 226; col. 5, lines 45-55, “In step 222, the video player receives the ad with an interactive link which a user/viewer may select and click on to obtain further information about the product being advertised, and optionally purchase same”; see col. 3, paragraph 1, “An interactive video player 108 is coupled via the Internet 110 to the video server 104 and ad server 106 for displaying video productions from the video server 104 and ads from the ad server 106 in accordance with principles of the present invention.”).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 27, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 39, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Briggs in view of Ozer discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising:
retrieving the supplemental content from the remote source using the indication of the
content resource, wherein causing output, during the available time slot, of at least the portion of
the supplemental content comprises causing output, during the available time slot, of at least the
portion of the supplemental content based on receiving the portion of the supplemental content
from the remote source (see citation in rejection to claim 3 above, e.g., Fig. 2, steps 216 to 226; col. 5, lines 45-55, “In step 222, the video player receives the ad with an interactive link which a user/viewer may select and click on to obtain further information about the product being advertised, and optionally purchase same”; see col. 3, paragraph 1, “An interactive video player 108 is coupled via the Internet 110 to the video server 104 and ad server 106 for displaying video productions from the video server 104 and ads from the ad server 106 in accordance with principles of the present invention”).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 28, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 40, see similar rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 5, Briggs in view of Ozer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing output, during the available time slot, of at least the portion of the supplemental content comprises causing output of the at least the portion of the supplemental content as an overlay on the content (See col. 5, lines 45-55, “In step 222, the video player receives the ad with an interactive link which a user/viewer may select and click on to obtain further information about the product being advertised, and optionally purchase same. The ad is then displayed as either or both an ad with the link as an overlay on the video production in step 224, or in step 226 as a calling cue point for the ad and link in an icon or logo in a timeline below the video production”. See also claim 3, “wherein an advertisement is displayed in the timeline, and the advertisement displayed in the timeline overlays at least a portion of the video.”).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 29, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 41, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 9, Briggs in view of Ozer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the supplemental content comprises an advertisement or interactive supplemental content (See col. 5, lines 45-55, “In step 222, the video player receives the ad with an interactive link which a user/viewer may select and click on to obtain further information about the product being advertised, and optionally purchase same. The ad is then displayed as either or both an ad with the link as an overlay on the video production in step 224, or in step 226 as a calling cue point for the ad and link in an icon or logo in a timeline below the video production”).
As to claim 21, see similar rejection to claim 9.
As to claim 33, see similar rejection to claim 9.
As to claim 45, see similar rejection to claim 9.
As to claim 10, Briggs in view of Ozer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving the content for output, wherein receiving the indication of the content resource that facilitates access to the supplemental content is based on receiving the content (see Fig. 2, wherein the cue point is triggered based on receiving the video and displaying the video).
As to claim 22, see similar rejection to claim 10.
As to claim 34, see similar rejection to claim 10.
As to claim 46, see similar rejection to claim 10.
As to claim 11, Briggs in view of Ozer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the campaign data comprises at least one of:
data from an advertiser associated with the supplemental content (Ozer, [0021]-[0022], the frequency cap is from the advertiser associated with the advertisement);
data from an advertising service (Ozer, [0021]-[0022], the solution data based on the frequency cap is from an advertisement service);
data associated with an advertiser request (Ozer, [0021-[0022]); or
data configured by an advertiser (Ozer, [0021]-[0022]).
As to claim 23, see similar rejection to claim 11.
As to claim 35, see similar rejection to claim 11.
As to claim 47, see similar rejection to claim 11.
As to claim 12, Briggs in view of Ozer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more timing parameters indicates a quantity or frequency (Ozer, [0021]-[0022], the frequency cap).
As to claim 24, see similar rejection to claim 12.
As to claim 36, see similar rejection to claim 12.
As to claim 48, see similar rejection to claim 12.
14. Claims 6-8, 18-20, 30-32 and 42-44 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Briggs in view of Ozer, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murakami (JP2010219875A, Google Patent translation is relied upon).
As to claim 6, Briggs in view of Ozer discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the supplemental content is further based on a profile associated with a user of the computing device.
Murakami discloses a concept for supplemental content to be based on a profile associated with a user of a computing device (pages 1-2, claims 1-9, “Third receiving means for receiving, from the viewer terminal, viewing history information of the viewer terminal including performers, genres and titles of the program content viewed on the viewer terminal; The advertisement metadata is selected from the first storage means based on the viewing history information, and the advertisement video data corresponding to the selected advertisement metadata is read from the first storage means and selected by the content selection means. Ad insertion means for inserting into the distribution content; A content distribution device comprising: distribution means for distributing the distribution content into which the advertisement video data is inserted to the viewer terminal”. Here, the viewing history information of the viewer terminal is a profile associated with a user/viewer of the viewer terminal. Also see pages 5-7).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Briggs in view of Ozer with Murakami. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to select advertisements according to a viewer’s viewing history (Murakami, pages 1-2, claims 1-9).
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 30, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 42, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 7, Briggs in view of Ozer and Murakami discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising sending the profile associated with the user of the computing device to a network service configured to select the supplemental content (see citation in rejection to claim 6, e.g., Murakami, pages 1-2, claims 1-9, “Third receiving means for receiving, from the viewer terminal, viewing history information of the viewer terminal including performers, genres and titles of the program content viewed on the viewer terminal; The advertisement metadata is selected from the first storage means based on the viewing history information, and the advertisement video data corresponding to the selected advertisement metadata is read from the first storage means and selected by the content selection means. Ad insertion means for inserting into the distribution content; A content distribution device comprising: distribution means for distributing the distribution content into which the advertisement video data is inserted to the viewer terminal”. Here, the viewing history information of the viewer terminal is a profile associated with a user/viewer of the viewer terminal, and the receiver of the viewing history information is a network service configured to select the advertisement. See page 6, paragraphs 2-3, “In step S <b> 4 of FIG. 4, the distribution management unit 3 a of the content distribution processing unit 3 acquires viewer viewing history information from the viewer terminal 8 via the network 9…. In step S5 of FIG. 4, the insertion advertisement acquisition unit (advertisement insertion means) 3b of the content distribution processing unit 3 acquires an advertisement (advertisement video data) to be inserted into the distribution content acquired in step S3. More specifically, the insertion advertisement acquisition unit 3b performs a distribution request based on the content metadata acquired in step S3 (if metadata is added to the content distribution request, this metadata may be used instead). The part (insertion point ID and insertion point information) where the advertisement is inserted into the distributed content is specified, and the selection condition of the advertisement to be inserted is set for each specified part. The advertisement selection condition is set based on, for example, viewing history information”).
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 31, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 43, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Briggs in view of Ozer and Murakami discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the profile is based at least in part on at least one of:
content that the user previously viewed or content that has previously been viewed on the computing device (Murakami, pages 1-2, claims 1-9, “Third receiving means for receiving, from the viewer terminal, viewing history information of the viewer terminal including performers, genres and titles of the program content viewed on the viewer terminal; The advertisement metadata is selected from the first storage means based on the viewing history information”. Also see page 8, paragraphs 4-6, “The viewing history information storage unit 8a stores viewing history information of program content that has been viewed so far in the viewer terminal (see FIG. 8). The viewing history information may include a viewing history of the distribution content”);
prior supplemental content that the user previously interacted with on a prior viewing of prior content;
a type of the computing device; or
demographic information associated with the user of the computing device.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 32, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 44, see similar rejection to claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUA FAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights