DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08 JUNE 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s current amendment (dated 08 JUNE 2026), has been entered. The status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-28 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference(s) and/or citations being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al., US 2018/0025405 in view of Taylor, US 2021/0274260 and further in view of Wan et al., US 2006/0026628.
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a content item comprising a plurality of segments (receiving video including sequences of frames from at least a content provider; page 1, paragraph 11, and page 3, paragraph 21, and page 7, paragraph 56, and wherein with other device(s); page 7, paragraph 59);
determining one or more products that correspond to one or more objects that are output in one or more first segments of the plurality of segments (can determine products to recommend based on determined objects/items in the video; page 3, paragraphs 22-23, and page 5, paragraph 41, and again which includes sequences, i.e. at least a first, of frames from a content provider; page 1, paragraph 11, and page 3, paragraph 21, and page 7, paragraph 56);
determining information of each segment of the plurality of segments (can determine Q points in video, which relate to interesting portions, i.e. interesting being a broadly interpreted kind, for particular frames/segments; page 1, paragraph 11, and page 3, paragraph 21, and page 4, paragraphs 36 and 37);
determining, based on the information of each segment, one or more segments of the plurality of segments for outputting content associated with the one or more products (can determine products and output the recommended products with particular frame(s)/segment(s) based on the determination of at least one Q point relating to an interesting kind of the particular frame(s)/segment(s); page 4, paragraph 32, and page 6, paragraphs 51 and 53, and page 7, paragraph 55); and
causing, based on the one or more segments and the one or more objects, content associated with at least one product of the one or more products to output during at least one segment of the one or more segments (output the recommended products with particular frame(s)/segment(s); page 4, paragraph 32, and page 6, paragraphs 51 and 53, and page 7, paragraph 55, and Fig. 3A, elements 310 and 330).
While Jones does also disclose video themes (themes in the video can be relating to sports games or promotions, i.e. again broad kinds of content; page 5, paragraph 44), as well as displaying based on a next video frame (can present information based on a next, i.e. second/other, video frame(s); page 6, paragraph 53, and page 7, paragraph 56), Jones does not explicitly disclose a scene type, the scene type, and determining based on the scene type, one or more second segments for outputting, and causing based on the one or more second segments, output during at least one second segment of the one or more second segments.
In a related art, Taylor does disclose a scene type, and the scene type (system can determine particular types of presented scenes, such as information in particular scenes, commercial scenes, and scenes of different categories; page 6, paragraph 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Jones and Taylor by allowing specific segments of particular types to be determined in the video already being analyzed by Jones, in order to provide an improved system and method for a media sharing and communication system, including a store section for shopping for products and listing products for sale, wherein the store section includes software that recognizes and tags items available to purchase in the media (Taylor; page 1, paragraph 6).
Jones in view of Taylor does not explicitly disclose determining based on a scene type, one or more second segments for outputting, and causing based on the one or more second segments, output during at least one second segment of the one or more second segments.
In a related art, Wan does disclose one or more first segments of a plurality of segments (includes at least a first, i.e. current, segment; page 6, paragraph 86); and
determining based on a scene type, one or more second segments for outputting, and causing based on the one or more second segments, output during at least one second segment of the one or more second segments (content can be inserted for output during a particular type of determined second segment, i.e. a calm segment, as compared to a prior/first segment with an action type; page 6, paragraphs 86-88, and wherein with high motion, i.e. action segment types, and crowd/substitution, i.e. slow/calm segment types; page 3, paragraph 43, and page 6, paragraph 88).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Jones, Taylor, and Wan by allowing specific segments of particular types, such as those already disclosed in Jones in view of Taylor, to be determined for outputting content, in order to provide an improved system and method for inserting additional content into a video segment of a video stream, the video segment comprising a series of video frames (Wan; page 1, paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 2, Jones in view of Taylor and Wan discloses determining, based on accessing inventory data, one or more product catalogs (Jones; accessing information from an online system, i.e. inventory, including items provided by content providers and/or catalog(s); page 5, paragraph 41, and Taylor; located based on inventory and availability, i.e. catalog of inventory from particular website or store; page 5, paragraphs 31 and 33); and
determining that the one or more product catalogs include one or more products that correspond to the one or more objects that are output in the one or more first segments of the plurality of segments (Jones; can recommend the products based on the products catalog(s); page 5, paragraph 41, and again based on determined products to recommend based from the objects/items in the video; page 3, paragraphs 22-23, and page 5, paragraph 41, and again which includes sequences, i.e. at least a first, of frames from a content provider; page 1, paragraph 11, and page 3, paragraph 21, and page 7, paragraph 56, and Taylor; located based on inventory and availability, i.e. catalog of inventory from particular website or store; page 5, paragraphs 31 and 33).
Regarding claim 3, Jones in view of Taylor and Wan discloses the scene type comprises one or more of an advertisement scene, a calm scene, an action scene, or a slow scene (Jones; content relating to promotions, i.e. advertisements; page 5, paragraph 44, and Taylor; types of presented scenes, such as information in particular scenes, commercial scenes, and scenes of different categories such as sports, i.e. action; page 6, paragraph 40, and Wan; high motion, i.e. action segment types, and crowd/substitution, i.e. slow/calm segment types; page 3, paragraph 43, and page 6, paragraph 88).
Regarding claim 4, Jones in view of Taylor and Wan discloses causing, based on the one or more second segments and one or more parameters associated the one or more objects, content associated with the at least one product of the one or more products to be output during the at least one second segment of the one or more second segments (Jones; output the recommended products with particular frame(s)/segment(s); page 4, paragraph 32, and page 6, paragraphs 51 and 53, and page 7, paragraph 55, and Fig. 3A, elements 310 and 330, and wherein this can be based on parameters such as similar types/brands/characteristics; page 5, paragraphs 41-42, and page 6, paragraph 53, and with categories of the products, sizing, etc.; pages 5-6, paragraph 45, and Taylor; products can also be based on interest of user(s); page 4, paragraph 31, and the type of item; page 5, paragraph 33, and Wan; content can be inserted for output during a particular type of determined second segment, i.e. a calm segment, as compared to a prior/first segment with an action type; page 6, paragraphs 86-88, and wherein with high motion, i.e. action segment types, and crowd/substitution, i.e. slow/calm segment types; page 3, paragraph 43, and page 6, paragraph 88).
Regarding claim 5, Jones in view of Taylor and Wan discloses the one or more parameters comprise one or more of a category, a size, a duration of output, a duration since output, a decay, a sponsor vendor, or a context relevance score (Jones; with at least categories of the products, sizing, etc.; pages 5-6, paragraph 45, and Taylor; the type of item; page 5, paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 6, Jones in view of Taylor and Wan discloses the content associated with the at least one product comprises product information (Jones; can provide information about the products, such as price, size, brand, etc.; page 4, paragraph 31, and Fig. 3A, elements 332, 333, 334, and 335, and page 6, paragraph 52, and Taylor; can include at least price/source; page 5, paragraphs 31 and 33).
Regarding claim 7, Jones in view of Taylor and Wan discloses the content associated with the at least one product comprises one or more of a URL or a QR code (Taylor; can also display QR code; page 2, paragraph 10, and page 5, paragraphs 31 and 39), wherein a second device outputs product information associated with the at least one product based on accessing the URL or the QR code (Taylor; secondary user device can output information for the item(s)/product(s) based on accessing/reading the code; page 5, paragraphs 31 and 39).
Claim 8, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
one or more processors (Jones; including at least one processor; page 7, paragraphs 59-60); and
a memory storing processor-executable instructions (Jones; computer program instructions/code stored on a storage medium/memory, and that can be executed by a processor; page 7, paragraphs 59-60).
Claim 9, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2.
Claim 10, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claim 11, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 1 and 4.
Claim 12, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claim 13, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 6.
Claim 14, which discloses an apparatus, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 7.
Claim 15, which discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions (Jones; computer program instructions/code stored on a storage medium/memory, and that can be executed by a processor; page 7, paragraphs 59-60, and wherein can include non-transitory media; page 7, paragraph 61).
Claim 16, which discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2.
Claim 17, which discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claim 18, which discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 1 and 4.
Claim 19, which discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claim 20, which discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 6.
Claim 21, which discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 7.
Claim 22, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a first computing device, and a second computing device (Jones; with server service(s); page 3, paragraph 26, and at least client device(s); page 2, paragraph 14, and Fig. 1, elements 110, and/or other device(s); page 7, paragraph 59).
Claim 23, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2.
Claim 24, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claim 25, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claims 1 and 4.
Claim 26, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claim 27, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 6.
Claim 28, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights