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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 limitation recites “…a data processing component, after the broadcast program is received, and while a live broadcast of the broadcast program being watched configured to generate conversion data based on a broadcast signal of the broadcast program being in live broadcast to enable generation of metadata, the metadata representing a content of the broadcast program…”
The phrase “while a live broadcast of the broadcast program being watched configured to generate…” is grammatically incorrect and does not clearly identify the subject that is “being watched” or the subject that is “configured to generate.” Examiner is unclear and cannot determine whether the “data processing component,” the “broadcast program,” or the “live broadcast” is the entity that is “configured to generate conversion data.”
The limitation recites multiple temporal conditions (“after the broadcast program is received,” “while a live broadcast…is being watched,” and “based on a broadcast signal…being in live broadcast”) without clearly specifying when the data processing component performs the recited generation of conversion data. The boundaries of the claimed timing are therefore ambiguous.
The phrase “broadcast signal…being in live broadcast” is unclear because a “signal” is not ordinarily described as “being in live broadcast.” It is therefore uncertain what aspect of the system is required to be “in live broadcast” at the time the conversion data is generated.
Furthermore, due to the grammatical structure, it is unclear whether the functional clause “configured to generate conversion data…” modifies the “data processing component” or another antecedent phrase. The claim therefore fails to distinctly define the component that performs the recited function.
Therefore, the claim language is unclear, grammatically ambiguous, and fails to provide reasonably certain boundaries, Examiner is not able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, claim 1 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(B). Because claims 2-12 are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1, the inherit the same issue.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browarnik et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0256058) in view of Phatak (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0150294).
Regarding claim 1, Browarnik et al. discloses a receiving and displaying video content, including live capture content (see paragraph 0025; captured from a live video feed (e.g., a live capture of the feed of an NBA game). Paragraph 0041 discloses playback device 110 “displays a potentially modified version of the source video 121 to the viewer”) wherein the receiving apparatus comprises:
a data processing component, during providing a broadcast program for watching, configured to generate conversion data (considered as hash vector) based on a broadcast signal of the broadcast program to enable generation of metadata representing a content of the broadcast program (see paragraph 0022; the playback device generates a perceptual hash of the frame image) and
a first transceiver component, configured to transmit the conversion data to a server apparatus that generates the metadata (see paragraphs 0022, 0043, 0049; The playback device 110 sends one or more of these hash vectors 115 and, optionally, a frame timestamp and information identifying the video content to the API server 130. Paragraph 0049 discloses the API server 130 queries the metadata database 150 for the metadata).
However, Browarnik does not disclose the live content is to be broadcasted.
Phatak discloses the receiving apparatus to receiving a broadcast program and providing it in a live broadcast manner (see paragraph 0016, a user may be watching an on-demand or live broadcast of a TV program on a first screen device. Paragraph 0024 discloses the video content 124 can include live television content).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Browarnik et al. with the teachings of Phatak, the motivation being to improve live broadcast metadata retrieval.
Regarding claim 2, Browarnik et al. and Phatak discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Browarnik et al. discloses wherein: the data processing component is configured to convert the broadcast program into a multi- dimensional array for each frame to generate the conversion data (see paragraph 0028; The hash vectors 145 may be fixed-size binary vectors (N×1 vectors, with each element in the vector containing either a 1 or 0) or floating point vectors. This hash generation processor 130 converts each frame version 125 into a corresponding perceptually meaningful hash vector 145).
Regarding claim 3, Browarnik et al. and Phatak discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2). Browarnik et al. discloses wherein: the data processing component is configured to generate the conversion data based on the multi-dimensional array, wherein the conversion data comprises an estimation result obtained by estimating the content of the broadcast program (see paragraphs 0004, 0022, 0028; perceptual hashing is, by definition, an estimation of the visual content).
Regarding claim 4, Browarnik et al. and Phatak discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Browarnik et al. discloses a task allocation component, configured to determine a task required for generating the conversion data based on the information, and allocate the task determined to the data processing component (see paragraphs 0027-0028). Phatak discloses a broadcast receiving component, configured to receive the broadcast signal of the broadcast program and program arrangement information multiplexed in the broadcast signal (see paragraphs 0005, 0016-0017, 0024, 0027); program arrangement information that drives processing tasks (see paragraphs 0005, 0014, 0016-0018).
Regarding claim 5, Browarnik et al. and Phatak discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 4). Browarnik et al. discloses after allocating the task to the data processing component, the task allocation component is configured to, based on that a remaining resource exists in the data processing component, allocate a pre-processing task for generating the conversion data to the data processing component (see paragraphs 0027-0034). Phatak discloses device performs additional processing tasks (see paragraphs 0014-0019).
Regarding claim 6, Browarnik et al. and Phatak discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Browarnik et al. discloses a metadata generation system, comprising: a receiving apparatus (see paragraphs 0022-0028); and a server apparatus, in communication with the receiving apparatus (see paragraph 0022); wherein the server apparatus comprises: a second transceiver component, configured to receive the conversion data from the receiving apparatus (see paragraph 0022); and a metadata generation component, configured to generate the metadata based on the conversion data (see paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 7, Browarnik et al. and Phatak discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 6). Phatak et al. discloses the server apparatus further comprises an advertisement determination component, wherein the advertisement determination component is configured to determine an insertion position of an advertisement in the broadcast program (see paragraphs 0006, 0017, 0025, 0027); and
the metadata generation component is configured to generate the metadata comprising information representing the insertion position of the advertisement (see paragraphs 0005-0006, 0017).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browarnik et al. and Phatak as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Wondra et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0274244).
Regarding claim 8, Browarnik et al. and Phatak discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 7). Browarnik et al. discloses the data processing component is configured to generate the conversion data for each frame (see paragraphs 0027-0028, 0035).
However, Browarnik et al. and Phatak are silent as to wherein the data comprises information representing an inference start position and an inference end position of the advertisement and the advertisement determination component is configured to determine the insertion position of the advertisement based on time sequence data, wherein the time sequence data is time sequence data in which the conversion data of each frame is arranged in time sequence.
Wondra et al. discloses wherein the conversion data comprises information representing an inference start position and an inference end position of the advertisement (see paragraphs 0017-0018); and
the advertisement determination component is configured to determine the insertion position of the advertisement based on time sequence data, wherein the time sequence data is time sequence data in which the conversion data of each frame is arranged in time sequence (see paragraphs 0017-0018).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Browarnik et al. and Phatak with the teachings of Wondra et al., the motivation being to indicate the presence of an advertisement.
Regarding claim 9, Browarnik et al., Phatak and Wondra et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 8). Wondra et al. discloses the advertisement determination component is configured to determine that no advertisement is inserted at the inference start position when no information of the inference end position is comprised for more than a predetermined period elapsed from the inference start position (see paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 10, Browarnik et al., Phatak and Wondra et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 8). Wondra et al. discloses based on that another inference start position or another inference end position is comprised between the inference start position and the inference end position, the advertisement determination component is configured to select, from combinations of inference start positions and inference end positions, a combination which is most approximate to a multiple of a shortest broadcast time of the advertisement during an insertion period of the advertisement as a start position and an end position of the advertisement (see paragraphs 0017-0018).
Regarding claim 11, Browarnik et al. and Phatak discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 7). Phatak discloses the server apparatus is connected with a plurality of receiving apparatuses comprising the receiving apparatus in a communicable manner (see paragraphs 0021-0024 and fig. 1).
However, Browarnik et al. and Phatak are silent as to the server apparatus further comprises an integration component, wherein the integration component is configured to integrate the conversion data collected from at least one of the plurality of receiving apparatuses that is providing a live broadcast of the broadcast program for watching into time sequence data.
Wondra et al. discloses the server apparatus further comprises an integration component (see paragraphs 0006-0018), wherein the integration component is configured to integrate the conversion data collected from at least one of the plurality of receiving apparatuses (see paragraphs 0006-0008, 0010, 0012) that is providing a live broadcast of the broadcast program for watching into time sequence data (see paragraphs 0017-0018).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Browarnik et al. and Phatak with the teachings of Wondra et al., the motivation being to integrate data from multiple devices.
Regarding claim 12, Browarnik et al., Phatak and Wondra et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 11). Browarnik et al. discloses the server apparatus is configured to transmit the metadata to the first transceiver component of at least one of the plurality of receiving apparatuses, wherein the metadata is generated based on the conversion data (see paragraphs 0022).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NNENNA NGOZI EKPO whose telephone number is (571)270-1663. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 10:00am - 6:30pm, TH-F 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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.
NNENNA EKPO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/NNENNA N EKPO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 June 24, 2026.
Prosecution Insights