DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-12, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,389. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim would have been obvious over the reference claims. Both sets of claims are directed to a method of enhancing segments based on complexity metadata, and one of ordinary skill would see the claims in question as obvious variants of each other.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,389 in view of Newell, US 9,998,794.
3 and 13. The parent claim is silent on determining topics. Newell teaches a system wherein determining the complexity score associated with the first segment further comprises:
determining a plurality of topics associated with the user based, at least in part, on the user information, wherein the user information comprises user viewing history data related to the user [viewing history is used to determine age/topics that may be confusing to user, col. 2, 6-12; col. 20, 13-45; cols. 21-22, ll. 66-18; cols. 18-19, ll. 50-36; col. 22, 39-56];
determining a topic related to the first segment of the plurality of segments [content is analyzed to determine topics, col. 20, 13-45; cols. 21-22, ll. 66-18; cols. 18-19, ll. 50-36; col. 22, 39-56];
determining that the plurality of topics associated with the user does not comprise the topic related to the first segment of the plurality of segments; and calculating the complexity score based, at least in part, on determining that the plurality of topics associated with the user does not comprise the topic related to the first segment of the plurality of segments [complexity/confusion likelihood is determined based on whether or not the user’s confusing topics match the content topics; if the topic does not match, it is not likely to cause confusion, col. 20, 13-45; cols. 21-22, ll. 66-18; cols. 18-19, ll. 50-36; col. 22, 39-56].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to incorporate Newell’s teachings, determining topics that would likely cause confusing to a particular user whose demographics are known. This can automate the system whereby supplemental content can be provided without latency and without the user having to manually request it.
4 and 14. Newell teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining the complexity score associated with the first segment further comprises:
determining a first demographic trait associated with the user based, at least in part, on the user information, wherein the user information comprises the first demographic trait [demographics include age/culture; viewing history is used to determine age/topics that may be confusing to user, col. 2, 6-12; col. 20, 13-45; cols. 21-22, ll. 66-18; cols. 18-19, ll. 50-36; col. 22, 39-56];];
determining a plurality of demographic traits related to the first segment of the plurality of segments based, at least in part, on the complexity information, wherein the complexity information comprises the plurality of demographic traits related to the first segment [content is analyzed to determine topics, e.g. based on age/culture, col. 20, 13-45; cols. 21-22, ll. 66-18; cols. 18-19, ll. 50-36; col. 22, 39-56];
determining the plurality of demographic traits related to the first segment comprises the first demographic trait associated with the user; and calculating the complexity score based, at least in part, on determining that the plurality of demographic traits related to the first segment comprises the first demographic trait associated with the user [complexity/confusion likelihood is determined based on whether or not the user’s confusing topics match the content topics such as age/culture, col. 20, 13-45; cols. 21-22, ll. 66-18; cols. 18-19, ll. 50-36; col. 22, 39-56 ., col. 20, 13-45; cols. 21-22, ll. 66-18; cols. 18-19, ll. 50-36; col. 22, 39-56].
6 and 16. Newell teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the user is located in a first vicinity; and the user information corresponds to a detection of a noise in the first vicinity [e.g. detecting user speech in the vicinity of the microphone, col. 17, 19-55].
8 and 18. Newell teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the metadata comprises dialog information related to the first segment of the plurality of segments [media content language, col. 21, 56-65; col. 30, 41-49; col. 33, 8-32].
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,389 in view of Gower et al., US 2016/0134945.
9 and 19. The parent claim is silent on focal point. Gower teaches a method of providing video wherein the metadata comprises a focal point of the first segment of the plurality of segments. [metadata includes topic of interest (focal point), paras. 6, 12, 17, 44, 47, 48, 49, 59].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Gower, using metadata as an efficient manner of determining the topic or “narrative interest” of a media segment, which can then be used to determine likelihood of confusion. This means the receiver does not need to analyze the content in real time, saving processing power and avoiding latency.
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 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell, US 9,998,794 in view of Wheatley, US 2015/0163558.
Claim 1 and 11 Newell teaches a method comprising:
Control circuitry and memory, storing a program [device 202, Fig. 2];
generating for display a media asset, wherein the media asset comprises a plurality of segments [Figs. 1-3; cols. 22-23, ll. 57-3; col. 25, 37-46; cols. 37-38, 42-8; col. 38, 19-41];
receiving complexity information related to the media asset, wherein the complexity information comprises a first piece of complexity information related to a first segment of the plurality of segments [user reaction related to a segment may indicate complexity/confusion, Fig. 1, cols. 33-34, ll. 63-42; cols. 37-38, ll. 42-8; col. 38, 19-41];
receiving a command from a user during the first segment of the plurality of segments [cols. 32-33, ll. 46-22];
accessing user information associated with the user [Fig. 1, col. 5, 57-67; cols. 19-21, ll. 55-8; col. 29, col. 30, 41-57];
determining that the complexity (i.e. confusion) exceeds a complexity threshold [cols. 11-12, ll. 46-27; cols. 12-13, ll. 57-4]; and
generating a first piece of supplemental content for display based, at least in part, on determining that the complexity score exceeds the complexity threshold [116, 118, Fig. 1; cols. 5-6, ll. 57-19; col. 23, 4-26; col. 29, 17-67, col. 34-35, ll. 54-28].
Newell is silent on complexity score per se. Wheatley teaches a method including determining a complexity score associated with the first segment based, at least in part, on the first piece of complexity information and the user information [attributes serve as a complexity score (e.g. “difficult plot,” “confusing”) which is calculated from reviews and viewing habits 710, Fig. 7, paras. 91-93; ratings also are a proxy for complexity score and may be raised or lowered based on attributes 712, paras. 97].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, using the feedback taught in Wheatley to produce accurate characterization of playback actions of particular users (e.g., rewind may mean disinterest, or merely confusion) and using aggregate data to predict significant timestamps in the content where actions will likely take place.
2 and 12. Newell teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the command corresponds to a pause command, a rewind command, a skip command, or a fast-forward command [cols. 32-33, ll. 46-22].
3 and 13. Newell teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining the complexity score associated with the first segment further comprises:
determining a plurality of topics associated with the user based, at least in part, on the user information, wherein the user information comprises user viewing history data related to the user [viewing history is used to determine age/topics that may be confusing to user, col. 2, 6-12; col. 20, 13-45; cols. 21-22, ll. 66-18; cols. 18-19, ll. 50-36; col. 22, 39-56];
determining a topic related to the first segment of the plurality of segments [content is analyzed to determine topics, col. 20, 13-45; cols. 21-22, ll. 66-18; cols. 18-19, ll. 50-36; col. 22, 39-56];
determining that the plurality of topics associated with the user does not comprise the topic related to the first segment of the plurality of segments; and calculating the complexity score based, at least in part, on determining that the plurality of topics associated with the user does not comprise the topic related to the first segment of the plurality of segments [complexity/confusion likelihood is determined based on whether or not the user’s confusing topics match the content topics; if the topic does not match, it is not likely to cause confusion, col. 20, 13-45; cols. 21-22, ll. 66-18; cols. 18-19, ll. 50-36; col. 22, 39-56].
4 and 14. Newell teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining the complexity score associated with the first segment further comprises:
determining a first demographic trait associated with the user based, at least in part, on the user information, wherein the user information comprises the first demographic trait [demographics include age/culture; viewing history is used to determine age/topics that may be confusing to user, col. 2, 6-12; col. 20, 13-45; cols. 21-22, ll. 66-18; cols. 18-19, ll. 50-36; col. 22, 39-56];];
determining a plurality of demographic traits related to the first segment of the plurality of segments based, at least in part, on the complexity information, wherein the complexity information comprises the plurality of demographic traits related to the first segment [content is analyzed to determine topics, e.g. based on age/culture, col. 20, 13-45; cols. 21-22, ll. 66-18; cols. 18-19, ll. 50-36; col. 22, 39-56];
determining the plurality of demographic traits related to the first segment comprises the first demographic trait associated with the user; and calculating the complexity score based, at least in part, on determining that the plurality of demographic traits related to the first segment comprises the first demographic trait associated with the user [complexity/confusion likelihood is determined based on whether or not the user’s confusing topics match the content topics such as age/culture, col. 20, 13-45; cols. 21-22, ll. 66-18; cols. 18-19, ll. 50-36; col. 22, 39-56 ., col. 20, 13-45; cols. 21-22, ll. 66-18; cols. 18-19, ll. 50-36; col. 22, 39-56].
5 and 15. Newell teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining the complexity score associated with the first segment further comprises:
assigning a first weight for the first piece of complexity information; assigning a second weight for a first piece of user information, wherein the user information comprises the first piece of user information; and calculating the complexity score based, at least in part, on the first weight for the first piece of complexity information and the second weight for the first piece of user information [the complexity is determined based on user information such as age or culture and complexity information for the media; i.e. both data are taken into account (weighted) in the determination; note the claim does not recite how the weight is assigned or how it affects the calculation; Fig. 1, cols. 19-21, ll. 55-8; col. 29, col. 30, 41-57 cols. 32-33, ll. 46-22; cols. 33-34, ll. 63-42; cols. 37-38, ll. 42-8; col. 38, 19-41].
6 and 16. Newell teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the user is located in a first vicinity; and the user information corresponds to a detection of a noise in the first vicinity [e.g. detecting user speech in the vicinity of the microphone, col. 17, 19-55].
7 and 17. Newell teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the complexity information comprises metadata associated with the first segment of the plurality of segments [e.g. media content topics, cols. 18-19, ll. 50-36; col. 20, 13-45].
8 and 18. Newell teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the metadata comprises dialog information related to the first segment of the plurality of segments [media content language, col. 21, 56-65; col. 30, 41-49; col. 33, 8-32].
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell and Wheatley as cited above in view of Gower et al., US 2016/0134945.
9 (from 7) and 19. The above references are silent on focal point. Gower teaches a method of providing video wherein the metadata comprises a focal point of the first segment of the plurality of segments. [metadata includes topic of interest (focal point), paras. 6, 12, 17, 44, 47, 48, 49, 59].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references, using metadata as an efficient manner of determining the topic or “narrative interest” of a media segment, which can then be used to determine likelihood of confusion. This means the receiver does not need to analyze the content in real time, saving processing power and avoiding latency.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell and Wheatley as cited above in view of Panchaksharaiah et al., US 2020/0099979.
10 and 20. Newell is silent on a metadata complexity identifier. Panchaksharaiah teaches a video distribution system wherein the metadata comprises a complexity identifier related to the first segment of the plurality of segments [para. 71].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references, using metadata as an efficient manner of determining the complexity score which is a proxy for likelihood of confusion. This means the receiver does not need to analyze the content in real time, saving processing power and avoiding latency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2424