DETAILED ACTION
Claims 11 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and filing to terminal disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejections.
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 2, 10, 11, 12, 19 and 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,875,133 in view of Mahapatra US 2022/0147759 hereinafter referred to as Mahapatra. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the features of claims of the instant application 2, 10-12, and 19-20 are either known or implicit from claim 1 of the ‘133 patent.
In regards to claim 2 (and 12), claim 1 lines 1-3 of the ‘133 patent requires obtaining subtitles for a media content item, whereas the instant application requires accessing a media content item. However, this difference would not represent novelty to those of ordinary skill. A subtitle may be considered a media content item and therefore, the omission of the feature of a subtitle in the instant application at this portion of the claim is merely a more general or broader way of referring to the claim feature. Additionally, the feature of the subtitle is claimed later in the claim in the instant application and therefore, those of ordinary skill would understand that the subtitle of the media item is the germane feature of the claim.
Claim 1 lines 13-15 of the ‘133 patent is more specifically determining when a word is replaceable by explicitly claiming a variance is less than a threshold. The instant application is broader in claiming this feature merely requiring determining whether to replace the a character with an image component. Those of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand this feature as a broader version of the ‘133 patent which lays out specifically how the determination is made.
Claim 1 lines 9-12 requires an image search and analyzing the results to determine a level of variance between images returned in the search. These features would be recognized as a more specific way of claiming determining if a subtitle is replaceable and selecting the image (by analyzing the results of the search). Therefore, the instant application merely represent a broader way of claiming the same features.
Additionally, claim 2 contains the features “… (2) a comparison between metadata of the media content item and metadata of the image component, [selecting the image component] …” which are known in the prior art. For example, Mahapatra paragraph [0028] teaches entity matcher system 104 may perform multiple comparisons between the content metadata image and the candidate metadata images for multiple entities. Entity unification system 118 may determine a match using different methods. For example, entity unification system 118 may select the candidate metadata image with the highest similarity score. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified the ‘133 patent in view of Mahapatra to have included the features of “… (2) a comparison between metadata of the media content item and metadata of the image component, [selecting the image component] …” because the service provider would like to resolve the multiple instances of metadata to the same entity when the instances of metadata refer to the same content (Mahapatra [0001]).
In regards to claim 10 and 20, the features of claim 2 of ‘133 are generally the same as that of claim 10 (and 20) of the instant application with different grammatical phrasing. However, those of ordinary skill would not consider the differences in wording a point of novelty. Therefore, the features of claim 10 (and 20) are anticipated by the ‘133 patent.
In regards to claim 11 and 21, the features of claims 7-8 are generally the same as that of claim 11 of the instant application with different grammatical phrasing. However, those of ordinary skill would not consider the differences in wording a point of novelty. Therefore, the features of claim 10 are anticipated by the ‘133 patent
Claim 3 and 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,875,133 in view of Mahapatra in view of Oh et al. US 2015/0046148 hereinafter referred to as Oh.
In regards to clams 3 and 13, Oh teaches “further comprising: generating, using control circuitry, the subtitles for the media content item.” Oh paragraph [0165] teaches Accordingly, the second caption data is generated by the caption converter 408 such that the words unsuitable for minors may be replaced by other words, special characters, images or the like. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified ‘133 in view of Oh to have included the features of “further comprising: generating, using control circuitry, the subtitles for the media content item.” Because there is a need for a method in which the hearing impaired can easily recognize the technical term and easily recognize specific emotions that a caption desires to indicate (Oh [0008]).
Claim 4-5 and 14-15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,875,133 in view of Mahapatra in view of Miller et al. US 9,456,170 hereinafter referred to as Miller.
In regards to claim 4 and 14, Miller teaches “further comprising: dynamically positioning the modified subtitles based at least in part on content of the media content item.” Miller column 13 lines 17-23 teaches the positioning process uses caption frame characteristics to determine the geometry of the caption text of the caption frame within the video frame, determine whether the caption text would obfuscate other identified content if displayed at a default location within the video frame, and if so, move the caption frame to a different location where identified content is not being rendered. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified ‘133 in view of Miller to have included the features of “further comprising: dynamically positioning the modified subtitles based at least in part on content of the media content item” because if a viewer is watching a documentary and there is text in the bottom of the screen that states who the speaker is and what their profession is, closed captioning cannot be placed over this text, as it would obscure the information (Miller column 1 lines 42-46).
In regards to claim 5 and 15, Miller teaches “wherein dynamically positioning the modified subtitles comprises adjusting a location of the subtitles to avoid obscuring an identified visual element of the media content item.” Miller column 13 lines 17-23 teaches the positioning process uses caption frame characteristics to determine the geometry of the caption text of the caption frame within the video frame, determine whether the caption text would obfuscate other identified content if displayed at a default location within the video frame, and if so, move the caption frame to a different location where identified content is not being rendered. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified ‘133 in view of Miller to have included the features of “wherein dynamically positioning the modified subtitles comprises adjusting a location of the subtitles to avoid obscuring an identified visual element of the media content item” because if a viewer is watching a documentary and there is text in the bottom of the screen that states who the speaker is and what their profession is, closed captioning cannot be placed over this text, as it would obscure the information (Miller column 1 lines 42-46).
Claim 6 and 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,875,133 in view of Mahapatra in view of Oh in view of Redmann2011/0285726.
In regards to claim 6 and 16, Oh “wherein the causing to display the modified subtitles comprises at least two different languages ...” Oh paragraph [0053] teaches the controller 110 translates a high-difficulty word or a sentence including the high-difficulty word into a sign language. The controller 110 generates a sign language animation based on the translated sign language. The sign language animation may include at least one of a first language-based sign language animation and a second language-based sign language animation. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified ‘133 in view of Oh to have included the features of wherein the causing to display the modified subtitles comprises at least two different languages ...” Because there is a need for a method in which the hearing impaired can easily recognize the technical term and easily recognize specific emotions that a caption desires to indicate (Oh [0008]).
Redmann teaches “display … at least two different languages simultaneously” Redman paragraph [0119] teaches safe subtitle display process 1000 may also be used to simultaneously display multiple subtitles (e.g., different languages), any of which might lie partially outside the non-clipping region. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified ‘133/Oh in view of Redman to have included the features of “display … at least two different languages simultaneously” because the one-size-fits-all positioning instructions created by studios or post-production houses cannot account for extremes in variance of projection geometry that may be encountered in exhibition auditoriums, and may result in subtitles being clipped by edges of projection screen or masking.
Claim 7 and 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,875,133 in view of Mahapatra in view of Arivazhagan et al. US 2022/0092274 hereinafter referred to as Arivazhagan.
In regards to claim 7 and 17, Arivazhagan teaches “wherein: the media content item is a live broadcast; and the subtitles are live closed captioning.” Arivazhagan paragraph [0040] teaches the translated text can be provided as captions or sub-titles for a live audio stream, such as a lecture, video broadcast, video conference, audio call, or other source of audio. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified ‘133 in view of Arivazhagan to have included the features of “wherein: the media content item is a live broadcast; and the subtitles are live closed captioning” because this can be especially useful to generate captions for a live audio feed, with very low latency (Arivazhagan [0002]).
Claim 8-9 and 18-19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,875,133 in view of Mahapatra in view of Reitan US 2012/0316860 hereinafter referred to as Reitan.
In regards to claim 8, ‘133 teaches “wherein a display is connected to a user device associated with a user”. The ‘133 patent claims displaying on a user device in claim 1 line 36. Therefore, this feature is known from the ‘133 patent. Reitan teaches “the method further comprising: identifying a language associated with the user; and automatically displaying subtitles when an audio component of the media content item is in a language other than the identified language associated with the user” Reitan paragraph [0009] teaches the system provides machine-translated captions to accompany the video content by determining the language the user has selected for their browser or a manual language selection of the user. Reitan paragraph [0009] teaches the video playing application plays back the video file and displays captions in the user's language. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified ‘133 in view of Reitan to have included the features of “the method further comprising: identifying a language associated with the user; and automatically displaying subtitles when an audio component of the media content item is in a language other than the identified language associated with the user” because many digital video files can only be understood by speakers of a particular language (Reitan [0002]).
In regards to claim 9, Reitan teaches “wherein identifying the language associated with the user comprises retrieving a user profile associated with the user, the user profile comprising an indication of the language associated with the user.” Reitan paragraph [0015] teaches Upon receiving a request to playback video, the system 100 can access the user's profile and determine the selected language. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified ‘133 in view of Reitan to have included the features of “wherein identifying the language associated with the user comprises retrieving a user profile associated with the user, the user profile comprising an indication of the language associated with the user” because many digital video files can only be understood by speakers of a particular language (Reitan [0002]).
Claim No.
Instant Application 19/018,066
US Patent 11,875,133
2, 12
A method comprising: accessing a media content item;
determining whether to replace a character component of subtitles of the media content item with an image component;
based at least in part on (1)the determining whether to replace the character component of the subtitles with the image component and, … selecting the image component corresponding to the character component;
(2) a comparison between metadata of the media content item and metadata of the image component, [selecting the image component] …
replacing the character component of the subtitles by the image component for modified subtitles;
and causing display of the modified subtitles.
Claim 1 lines 1-3
Claim 1 lines 13-15
Claim 1 lines 9-12
Mahapatra paragraph [0028]
Claim 1 lines 33-35
Claim 1 lines 36
3,13
further comprising: generating, using control circuitry, the subtitles for the media content item.
Oh [0165]
4,14
further comprising: dynamically positioning the modified subtitles based at least in part on content of the media content item.
Miller column 13 lines 17-23
5,15
wherein dynamically positioning the modified subtitles comprises adjusting a location of the subtitles to avoid obscuring an identified visual element of the media content item.
Miller column 13 lines 17-23
6,16
wherein the causing to display the modified subtitles comprises at least two different languages simultaneously.
Oh paragraph [0053], Redmann [0119]
7,17
wherein: the media content item is a live broadcast; and the subtitles are live closed captioning.
Arivazhagan paragraph [0040]
8,18
wherein a display is connected to a user device associated with a user, the method further comprising: identifying a language associated with the user; and automatically displaying subtitles when an audio component of the media content item is in a language other than the identified language associated with the user.
Claim 1 lines 36, Reitan [0009]
9,19
wherein identifying the language associated with the user comprises retrieving a user profile associated with the user, the user profile comprising an indication of the language associated with the user.
Reitan [0015]
10,20
wherein determining whether to replace the character component of subtitles of the media content item with the image component is based at least in part on comparing a length of the character component to a predetermined length threshold.
Claim 2
11
further comprising: identifying a frame of the media content item that includes information related to the character component; wherein selecting the image component corresponding to the character component comprises selecting at least a portion of the identified frame of the media content item; and wherein replacing the character component of the subtitles by the image component comprises replacing the character component of the subtitles with the at least the portion of the identified frame of the media content item.
Claims 7-8
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. US 2015/0046148 hereinafter referred to as Oh in view of Mahapatra US 2022/0147759 hereinafter referred to as Mahapatra.
In regards to claim 2, Oh teaches:
“A method comprising: accessing a media content item”
Oh Figure 4 illustrates a video receiver 122 providing video to caption decoder 402. Oh Figure 5 step S502 teaches receive content data.
“determining whether to replace a character component of subtitles of the media content item with an image component”
Oh paragraph [0164] teaches some of the first caption data may include the words (e.g., slangs, jargons and the like), which may not be suitable for minors. In the process of converting first caption data into second caption data, the caption converter 408 in the controller 110 replaces the words unsuitable for minors with other words in the second caption data or replaces the words with special characters, images or the like.
“based at least in part on the determining whether to replace the character component of the subtitles with the image component, selecting the image component corresponding to the character component”
Oh paragraph [0164] teaches Accordingly, the second caption data is generated by the caption converter 408 such that the words unsuitable for minors may be replaced by other words, special characters, images or the like. Oh paragraph [0165] teaches if slang is extracted by the word dictionary 406, the caption converter 408 generates second caption data by replacing the slang with another word, a special character, an image, or the like. The Examiner interprets that when replacing with an image, an image component must be selected.
“replacing the character component of the subtitles by the image component for modified subtitles”
Oh paragraph [0164] teaches Accordingly, the second caption data is generated by the caption converter 408 such that the words unsuitable for minors may be replaced by other words, special characters, images or the like. Oh paragraph [0165] teaches if slang is extracted by the word dictionary 406, the caption converter 408 generates second caption data by replacing the slang with another word, a special character, an image, or the like.
“and causing display of the modified subtitles”
Oh Figure 5 step S514.
In regards to claim 3, Oh teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and further teaches:
“further comprising: generating, using control circuitry, the subtitles for the media content item”
Oh paragraph [0165] teaches Accordingly, the second caption data is generated by the caption converter 408 such that the words unsuitable for minors may be replaced by other words, special characters, images or the like.
In regards to claim 12, Oh teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and claim 12 contains similar limitations. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 2.
In regards to claim 13, Oh teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and claim 13 contains similar limitations as in claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 3.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Mahapatra in view of Miller et al. US 9,456,170 hereinafter referred to as Miller.
In regards to claim 4, Oh/Mahapatra teaches all the limitations of claim 2 but does not explicitly teach:
“further comprising: dynamically positioning the modified subtitles based at least in part on content of the media content item”
Miller column 13 lines 17-23 teaches the positioning process uses caption frame characteristics to determine the geometry of the caption text of the caption frame within the video frame, determine whether the caption text would obfuscate other identified content if displayed at a default location within the video frame, and if so, move the caption frame to a different location where identified content is not being rendered. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Oh/Mahapatra in view of Miller to have included the features of “further comprising: dynamically positioning the modified subtitles based at least in part on content of the media content item” because if a viewer is watching a documentary and there is text in the bottom of the screen that states who the speaker is and what their profession is, closed captioning cannot be placed over this text, as it would obscure the information (Miller column 1 lines 42-46).
In regards to claim 5, Oh/Mahapatra teaches all the limitations of claim 2 but does not explicitly teach:
“wherein dynamically positioning the modified subtitles comprises adjusting a location of the subtitles to avoid obscuring an identified visual element of the media content item”
Miller column 13 lines 17-23 teaches the positioning process uses caption frame characteristics to determine the geometry of the caption text of the caption frame within the video frame, determine whether the caption text would obfuscate other identified content if displayed at a default location within the video frame, and if so, move the caption frame to a different location where identified content is not being rendered. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Oh/Mahapatra in view of Miller to have included the features of “wherein dynamically positioning the modified subtitles comprises adjusting a location of the subtitles to avoid obscuring an identified visual element of the media content item” because if a viewer is watching a documentary and there is text in the bottom of the screen that states who the speaker is and what their profession is, closed captioning cannot be placed over this text, as it would obscure the information (Miller column 1 lines 42-46).
In regards to claim 14, Oh/Mahapatra teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and claim 14 contains similar limitations as in claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 4.
In regards to claim 15, Oh/Mahapatra teaches all the limitations of claim 14 and claim 15 contains similar limitations as in claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 5.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Mahapatra in view of Redmann US 2011/0285726 hereinafter referred to as Redmann.
In regards to claim 6, Oh/Mahapatra teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and further teaches: /
“wherein the causing to display the modified subtitles comprises at least two different languages ...”
Oh paragraph [0053] teaches the controller 110 translates a high-difficulty word or a sentence including the high-difficulty word into a sign language. The controller 110 generates a sign language animation based on the translated sign language. The sign language animation may include at least one of a first language-based sign language animation and a second language-based sign language animation.
Oh does not explicitly teach:
“display … at least two different languages simultaneously”
Redman paragraph [0119] teaches safe subtitle display process 1000 may also be used to simultaneously display multiple subtitles (e.g., different languages), any of which might lie partially outside the non-clipping region. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Oh/Mahapatra in view of Redman to have included the features of “display … at least two different languages simultaneously” because the one-size-fits-all positioning instructions created by studios or post-production houses cannot account for extremes in variance of projection geometry that may be encountered in exhibition auditoriums, and may result in subtitles being clipped by edges of projection screen or masking.
In regards to claim 16, Oh/Mahapatra teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and claim 16 contains similar limitations as in claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Mahapatra in view of Arivazhagan et al. US 2022/0092274 hereinafter referred to as Arivazhagan.
In regards to claim 7, Oh/Mahapatra teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and further teaches:
“wherein: the media content item is a live broadcast; and the subtitles are live closed captioning”
Arivazhagan paragraph [0040] teaches the translated text can be provided as captions or sub-titles for a live audio stream, such as a lecture, video broadcast, video conference, audio call, or other source of audio. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Oh/Mahapatra in view of Arivazhagan to have included the features of “wherein: the media content item is a live broadcast; and the subtitles are live closed captioning” because this can be especially useful to generate captions for a live audio feed, with very low latency (Arivazhagan [0002]).
In regards to claim 17, Oh/Mahapatra teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and claim 17 contains similar limitations as in claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 7.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Mahapatra in view of Reitan US 2012/0316860 hereinafter referred to as Reitan.
In regards to claim 8, Oh/Mahapatra teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and further teaches:
“wherein a display is connected to a user device associated with a user”
Oh Figure 2, inter alia.
Oh does not explicitly teach:
“the method further comprising: identifying a language associated with the user; and automatically displaying subtitles when an audio component of the media content item is in a language other than the identified language associated with the user”
Reitan paragraph [0009] teaches the system provides machine-translated captions to accompany the video content by determining the language the user has selected for their browser or a manual language selection of the user. Reitan paragraph [0009] teaches the video playing application plays back the video file and displays captions in the user's language. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Oh/Mahapatra in view of Reitan to have included the features of “the method further comprising: identifying a language associated with the user; and automatically displaying subtitles when an audio component of the media content item is in a language other than the identified language associated with the user” because many digital video files can only be understood by speakers of a particular language (Reitan [0002]).
In regards to claim 9, Oh/Mahapatra teaches all the limitations of claim 8 and further teaches:
“wherein identifying the language associated with the user comprises retrieving a user profile associated with the user, the user profile comprising an indication of the language associated with the user”
Reitan paragraph [0015] teaches Upon receiving a request to playback video, the system 100 can access the user's profile and determine the selected language. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Oh/Mahapatra in view of Reitan to have included the features of “wherein identifying the language associated with the user comprises retrieving a user profile associated with the user, the user profile comprising an indication of the language associated with the user” because many digital video files can only be understood by speakers of a particular language (Reitan [0002]).
In regards to claim 18, Oh/Mahapatra teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and claim 18 contains similar limitations as in claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 8.
In regards to claim 19, Oh/Mahapatra teaches all the limitations of claim 18 and claim 19 contains similar limitations as in claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 9.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Mahapatra in view of Bojja et al. US 2017/0185581 hereinafter referred to as Bojja.
In regards to claim 10, Oh/Mahapatra teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and further teaches:
“wherein determining whether to replace the character component of subtitles of the media content item with the image component is based at least in part on [suitability for minors]”
Oh paragraph [0164] teaches In addition, some of the first caption data may include the words (e.g., slangs, jargons and the like), which may not be suitable for minors.
Oh does not explicitly teach
“[replacing based at least in part on] comparing a length of the character component to a predetermined length threshold”
Bojja teaches in paragraph [0113] teaches the minimum threshold for suggesting emoji is preferably two characters, so that only input queries having more than two characters will receive emoji suggestions, although other character lengths for the minimum threshold are possible. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Oh/Mahapatra in view of Bojja to have included the features of “[replacing based at least in part on] comparing a length of the character component to a predetermined length threshold” because it can be time consuming, and sometimes overwhelming, for users to browse through and select appropriate emoji for a given context when participating in emoji-applicable computing activities (Bojja [0004]).
In regards to claim 20, Oh/Mahapatra teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and claim 20 contains similar limitations as in claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
