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 Status
Claims 1-29 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 3, 6-7, 16, 21-22, and 29 are amended.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/25/2026 has been entered.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 3 is withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-29 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that upon an indication that all of the claims are otherwise allowable, Applicant will consider submitting a terminal disclaimer. However, no such terminal disclaimer has been filed. Therefore, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-29 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 7, 13, 17, 22, and 26 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. With respect to these claims, the Examiner notes that the claims are recited in overtly broad terms, using language such as “determining, based on” without reciting how to determine or how the determination is based on. For example, the claims do not recite how “a return caption time window” determined or how it is determined based on “a time offset”. The USPTO interprets the claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified (see MPEP 2111).
Applicant argues, regarding claims 1 and 17, Oztaskent does not disclose "determining, based on a time offset from a scheduled caption time window corresponding to the one or more scheduled captions, a return caption time window" and "confirming delivery of the scheduled content".
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Oztaskent teaches a method of comparing closed captioning data from one or more client capture devices with closed captioning data received by a measurement capture device (col. 14, lines 60-67). Fig. 3 illustrates this comparison in association with confidence measurement for the purpose of audience measurement. The closed captioning data captured by measurement service capture device 110 is associated with program content based on a broadcast schedule (col. 15, lines 22-35). As illustrated in Fig. 3, each segment of the scheduled content corresponds to a respective time window. For example, program segment A 300a corresponds to time window t1. Fig. 3 further illustrates a time period encompassing times t2 and t3 corresponding to segment Alt. content 302a. Therefore, Oztaskent demonstrates a time offset from a scheduled caption time window corresponding to the one or more scheduled captions. Oztaskent further teaches each segment of content is compared or matched to a corresponding segment. As illustrated in Fig. 3, program segment B occurs after both the scheduled time window t1 and the offset t2-t3 and program segment B is illustrated as corresponding to a time window t4 (col. 15, line 22 through col. 16, line 25). Therefore, Oztaskent demonstrates determining, based on a time offset from a scheduled caption time window corresponding to the one or more scheduled captions, a return caption time window. Oztaskent further teaches based on matching closed captioning data captured by capture device 104 with closed captioning data captured by capture device 110, confirming that the user watched the program (col. 15, line 22 through col. 16, line 25). In order to watch the program, the scheduled content must be delivered. Therefore, Oztaskent demonstrates "confirming delivery of the scheduled content".
Applicant further argues, regarding claims 7 and 22, Oztaskent fails to disclose "determining, based on the first time window, a second time window" and "determining one or more return captions of return content in the second time window".
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above Oztaskent demonstrates determining, based on a time offset from a scheduled caption time window corresponding to the one or more scheduled captions, a return caption time window. Therefore, Oztaskent demonstrates an even broader version "determining, based on the first time window, a second time window". Oztaskent further teaches comparing and matching closed captioning data for each segment of content. Fig. 3 illustrates program segment B is illustrated as corresponding to a time window t4 and the closed captioning data for segment B from client capture device 104 are compared and matched (col. 15, line 22 through col. 16, line 25). Therefore, Oztaskent demonstrates "determining one or more return captions of return content in the second time window".
Applicant further argues, regarding claims 13 and 26, Oztaskent does not disclose "determining, based on a time offset from a scheduled caption time window corresponding to the one or more scheduled captions, a return caption time window," and "sending an indication that the scheduled content was not delivered".
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above Oztaskent demonstrates determining, based on a time offset from a scheduled caption time window corresponding to the one or more scheduled captions, a return caption time window. Oztaskent further teaches providing a count of devices that received the program as a response to a broadcaster, advertiser, producer, panel provider, marketer, analyst, or other entity. This may indicate that the program was not received or delivered to one or more devices because the measurement is taken for every device identifier in the audience array including those that did not receive or watch the program (col. 21, line 39 through col. 22, line 23, Fig. 4C). Therefore, Oztaskent demonstrates "sending an indication that the scheduled content was not delivered".
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 1-10, 12, 15-23, 25, and 28-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,540.
Claims 11, 13-14, 24, and 26-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,540 in view of Oztaskent et al. (US 9,485,525).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-10, 12, 15-23, 25, and 28-29 are anticipated by claims 1-9, 11-14, 16-20, and 24 of the Patent, and claims 11, 13-14, 24, and 26-27 are an obvious variation of the patented claims.
U.S. Patent No. 12,267,540 teaches:
Application #19/065,671
U.S. Patent No. 12,267,540
1. A method comprising: transmitting one or more scheduled captions corresponding to scheduled content; determining, based on a time offset from a scheduled caption time window corresponding to the one or more scheduled captions, a return caption time window; determining, based on the return caption time window, one or more return captions corresponding to content that was sent for presentation on at least one user device; comparing the one or more scheduled captions with the one or more return captions; and based on the comparing, confirming delivery of the scheduled content.
1. A method comprising: transmitting one or more scheduled captions corresponding to scheduled content; comparing the one or more scheduled captions with one or more return captions corresponding to content that was sent for presentation on a user device, wherein the comparing comprises: determining a scheduled caption time window corresponding to the one or more scheduled captions; determining, based on a time offset from the scheduled caption time window, a return caption time window; determining, based on the return caption time window, the one or more return captions; and determining a difference between text of the one or more scheduled captions and text of the one or more return captions; and confirming delivery of the scheduled content based on the difference being less than a threshold amount.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising changing, based on comparing another one or more scheduled captions with another one or more return captions, the time offset.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising changing, based on comparing of another one or more scheduled captions with another one or more return captions, the time offset.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising changing the time offset, wherein the changing the time offset is based on a comparison between: a threshold value; and a difference between another one or more scheduled captions and another one or more return captions is less than a threshold amount.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: changing, based on determining that a difference between text of another one or more scheduled captions and text of another one or more return captions is less than the threshold amount, the time offset.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising changing, based on a time offset between another one or more scheduled captions and another one or more return captions, the time offset from the scheduled caption time window.
4. The method of claim 1, … further comprises: changing, based on the time offset between text of another one or more scheduled captions and text of another one or more return captions, the time offset from the scheduled caption time window.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the one or more return captions comprises performing optical character recognition of the content that was sent for presentation on the user device.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the one or more return captions comprises performing optical character recognition of the content that was sent for presentation on the user device.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the one or more return captions comprises determining the one or more return captions separately from signals associated with the content that are transmitted to the at least one user device.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the one or more return captions comprises determining the one or more return captions separately from signals transmitted to the user device.
7. A method comprising: determining, based on a content insertion signal, one or more scheduled captions of scheduled content in a first time window; determining, based on the first time window, one or more return captions of return content in a second time window; comparing the one or more scheduled captions with the one or more return captions; and confirming, based on the comparing, delivery of an item of the scheduled content.
6. A method comprising: determining, based on a scheduled content insertion signal, a scheduled caption time window and a return caption time window; determining, based on the scheduled caption time window, a scheduled item of inserted content; determining, based on the return caption time window, one or more return captions of return content; comparing one or more scheduled captions of the scheduled item of inserted content with the one or more return captions of return content; and confirming delivery of the scheduled item of inserted content based on the comparing resulting in a determination of a match between at least one of the one or more scheduled captions and at least one of the one or more return captions.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the content insertion signal comprises an SCTE- 35 signal.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the scheduled content insertion signal comprises an SCTE-35 signal.
9. The method of claim 7, wherein the one or more return captions were generated for delivery within the second time window.
8. The method of claim 6, wherein the one or more return captions were generated for delivery within the scheduled caption time window.
10. The method of claim 7, wherein the one or more scheduled captions are scheduled to occur within the first time window.
9. The method of claim 6, wherein the one or more scheduled captions are scheduled to occur within the scheduled caption time window.
11. The method of claim 7, wherein the confirming comprises sending a message indicating delivery of an item of content associated with the one or more scheduled captions.
12. The method of claim 7, wherein the determining the one or more return captions comprises performing optical character recognition of the return content.
11. The method of claim 6, wherein the determining the one or more return captions comprises performing optical character recognition of the return content.
13. A method comprising: transmitting one or more scheduled captions corresponding to scheduled content; determining, based on a time offset from a scheduled caption time window corresponding to the one or more scheduled captions, a return caption time window; determining, based on the return caption time window, one or more return captions corresponding to content that was sent for presentation on at least one user device; comparing the one or more scheduled captions with the one or more return captions; and based on the comparing, sending an indication that the scheduled content was not delivered.
1. A method comprising: transmitting one or more scheduled captions corresponding to scheduled content; comparing the one or more scheduled captions with one or more return captions corresponding to content that was sent for presentation on a user device, wherein the comparing comprises: determining a scheduled caption time window corresponding to the one or more scheduled captions; determining, based on a time offset from the scheduled caption time window, a return caption time window; determining, based on the return caption time window, the one or more return captions; and determining a difference between text of the one or more scheduled captions and text of the one or more return captions; and confirming delivery of the scheduled content based on the difference being less than a threshold amount.
14. The method of claim 13, further comprising modifying, based on the comparing, scheduled caption data.
15. The method of claim 13, further comprising changing, based on comparing another one or more scheduled captions with another one or more return captions, the time offset.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising changing, based on comparing of another one or more scheduled captions with another one or more return captions, the time offset.
16. The method of claim 13, wherein the determining the one or more return captions comprises determining the one or more return captions separately from signals associated with the content that are transmitted to the at least one user device.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the one or more return captions comprises determining the one or more return captions separately from signals transmitted to the user device.
17. An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: transmit one or more scheduled captions corresponding to scheduled content; determine, based on a time offset from a scheduled caption time window corresponding to the one or more scheduled captions, a return caption time window; determine, based on the return caption time window, one or more return captions corresponding to content that was sent for presentation on at least one user device; compare the one or more scheduled captions with the one or more return captions; and based on comparing the one or more scheduled captions with the one or more return captions, confirm delivery of the scheduled content.
13. An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: transmit one or more scheduled captions corresponding to scheduled content; compare the one or more scheduled captions with one or more return captions corresponding to content that was sent for presentation on a user device, by at least: determining a scheduled caption time window corresponding to the one or more scheduled captions; determining, based on a time offset from the scheduled caption time window, a return caption time window; determining, based on the return caption time window, the one or more return captions; and determining a difference between text of the one or more scheduled captions and text of the one or more return captions; and confirm delivery of the scheduled content based on the difference being less than a threshold amount.
18. The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to change, based on comparing another one or more scheduled captions with another one or more return captions, the time offset.
14. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to: change, based on comparing of another one or more scheduled captions with another one or more return captions, the time offset.
19. The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to change, based on a time offset between another one or more scheduled captions and another one or more return captions, the time offset from the scheduled caption time window.
16. The apparatus of claim 13,… wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to change, based on the time offset between text of another one or more scheduled captions and text of another one or more return captions, the time offset from the scheduled caption time window.
20. The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to determine the one or more return captions by at least performing optical character recognition of the content that was sent for presentation on the user device.
17. The apparatus of claim 13 wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to determine the one or more return captions based on optical character recognition of the content that was sent for presentation on the user device.
21. The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to determine the one or more return captions by at least determining the one or more return captions separately from signals associated with the content that are transmitted to the at least one user device.
18. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to determine the one or more return captions separately from signals transmitted to the user device.
22. An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: determine, based on a content insertion signal, one or more scheduled captions of scheduled content in a first time window; determine, based on the first time window, one or more return captions of return content in a second time window; compare the one or more scheduled captions with the one or more return captions; and confirm, based on the comparing, delivery of the scheduled content.
19. An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: determine, based on a scheduled content insertion signal, a scheduled caption time window and a return caption time window; determine, based on the scheduled caption time window, a scheduled item of inserted content; determine, based on the return caption time window, one or more return captions of return content; compare one or more scheduled captions of the scheduled item of inserted content with the one or more return captions of return content; and confirm delivery of the scheduled item of inserted content based on the comparing resulting in a determination of a match between at least one of the one or more scheduled captions and at least one of the one or more return captions.
23. The apparatus of claim 22, wherein the content insertion signal comprises an SCTE- 35 signal.
20. The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the scheduled content insertion signal comprises an SCTE-35 signal.
24. The apparatus of claim 22, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to confirm the delivery by at least sending a message indicating delivery of an item of content associated with the one or more scheduled captions.
25. The apparatus of claim 22, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to determine the one or more return captions by at least performing optical character recognition of the return content.
24. The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to determine the one or more return captions based on optical character recognition of the return content.
26. An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: transmit one or more scheduled captions corresponding to scheduled content; determine, based on a time offset from a scheduled caption time window corresponding to the one or more scheduled captions, a return caption time window; determine, based on the return caption time window, one or more return captions corresponding to content that was sent for presentation on at least one user device; compare the one or more scheduled captions with the one or more return captions; and based on comparing the one or more scheduled captions with the one or more return captions, send an indication that the scheduled content was not delivered.
13. An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: transmit one or more scheduled captions corresponding to scheduled content; compare the one or more scheduled captions with one or more return captions corresponding to content that was sent for presentation on a user device, by at least: determining a scheduled caption time window corresponding to the one or more scheduled captions; determining, based on a time offset from the scheduled caption time window, a return caption time window; determining, based on the return caption time window, the one or more return captions; and determining a difference between text of the one or more scheduled captions and text of the one or more return captions; and confirm delivery of the scheduled content based on the difference being less than a threshold amount.
27. The apparatus of claim 26, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to modify, based on comparing the one or more scheduled captions with the one or more return captions, scheduled caption data.
28. The apparatus of claim 26, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to change, based on comparing another one or more scheduled captions with another one or more return captions, the time offset.
14. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the apparatus to: change, based on comparing of another one or more scheduled captions with another one or more return captions, the time offset.
29. The apparatus of claim 26, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to determine the one or more return captions by at least determining the one or more return captions separately from signals associated with the content that are transmitted to the at least one user device.
18. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to determine the one or more return captions separately from signals transmitted to the user device.
U.S. Patent No. 12,267,540 does not explicitly disclose: sending a message indicating delivery of an item of content associated with the one or more scheduled captions of claims 11 and 24, sending an indication that the scheduled content was not delivered of claims 13 and 26, or modifying, based on the comparing, scheduled caption data of claims 14 and 27. However, these features are taught by Oztaskent as explained below. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found claims 11, 13-14, 24, and 26-27 to be an obvious variation of the patented claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 15, 18-19, and 28 would be allowable if the above double patenting rejections were to be overcome and further if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 13-14, 16-17, 21, 26-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oztaskent et al. (US 9,485,525).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Oztaskent teaches: A method and an apparatus comprising:
transmitting one or more scheduled captions corresponding to scheduled content [transmitting closed captioning data to measurement system and storing in closed captioning database 114, the data may be associated with an item of content based on a broadcast schedule (col. 9, lines 15-45, Fig. 1A and 1B)]
determining, based on a time offset from a scheduled caption time window corresponding to the one or more scheduled captions, a return caption time window [Fig. 3 illustrates a time window t1, an offset from t1 being times t2 and t3, and determining a time window t4 after the offset. T1 is illustrated as corresponding to a program segment A received by measurement service capture device 110 that captures closed captioning data embedded in the segment A. The closed captioning data captured by measurement service capture device 110 is associated with program content based on a broadcast schedule. T4 is illustrated as corresponding to program segment B received by client capture device 104 that captures closed captioning data in the segment B (col. 14, lines 60-67, col. 15, line 22 through col. 16, line 25, Fig. 3)]
determining, based on the return caption time window, one or more return captions corresponding to content that was sent for presentation on at least one user device [Fig. 3 illustrates that t4 corresponds segment B. Determining closed captioning data captured by capture device 104 during time t4 (col. 15, line 22 through col. 16, line 25, Fig. 3)]
comparing the one or more scheduled captions with the one or more return captions; and based on the comparing, confirming delivery of the scheduled content [based on matching closed captioning data captured by capture device 104 with closed captioning data captured by capture device 110, confirming that the user watched the program (col. 15, line 22 through col. 16, line 25, Fig. 3)].
Regarding claims 6 and 21, Oztaskent teaches the method of claim 1; Oztaskent further teaches: the determining the one or more return captions comprises determining the one or more return captions separately from signals, associated with the content that was sent for presentation, that are transmitted to the at least one user device [the closed captioning data is captured by capture device 104 and provided to Audience measurement servers 112, which is separate from audio/video signals which are received by receiver 102a and multimedia system 106 (col. 15, line 22 through col. 16, line 25, Fig. 1A-1B and 3)].
Regarding claims 13 and 26, Oztaskent teaches: A method and an apparatus comprising:
transmitting one or more scheduled captions corresponding to scheduled content [transmitting closed captioning data to measurement system and storing in closed captioning database 114, the data may be associated with an item of content based on a broadcast schedule (col. 9, lines 15-45, Fig. 1A and 1B)]
determining, based on a time offset from a scheduled caption time window corresponding to the one or more scheduled captions, a return caption time window [Fig. 3 illustrates a time window t1, an offset from t1 being times t2 and t3, and determining a time window t4 after the offset. T1 is illustrated as corresponding to a program segment A received by measurement service capture device 110 that captures closed captioning data embedded in the segment A. T4 is illustrated as corresponding to program segment B received by client capture device 104 that captures closed captioning data in the segment B (col. 15, line 22 through col. 16, line 25, Fig. 3)]
determining, based on the return caption time window, one or more return captions corresponding to content that was sent for presentation on at least one user device [Fig. 3 illustrates that t4 corresponds segment B. Determining closed captioning data captured by capture device 104 during time t4 (col. 15, line 22 through col. 16, line 25, Fig. 3)]
comparing the one or more scheduled captions with the one or more return captions; and based on the comparing, sending an indication that the scheduled content was not delivered [determining whether closed captioning data captured by capture device 104 matches with closed captioning data captured by capture device 110 including keeping track of which devices have received which programs (col. 15, line 22 through col. 16, line 25, Fig. 3). Providing a count of devices that received the program as a response to a broadcaster, advertiser, producer, panel provider, marketer, analyst, or other entity. This may indicate that the program was not received by one or more devices (col. 21, line 39 through col. 22, line 23, Fig. 4C)].
Regarding claims 14 and 27, Oztaskent teaches the method of claim 13; Oztaskent further teaches: modifying, based on the comparing, scheduled caption data [based on matching the captions, modifying data associated with the captions, such as by incrementing an audience counter for the program and/or adding a device identifier of the client capture device 104 to a confirmed audience list for the program (col. 15, line 48 through col. 16, line 12)].
Regarding claims 16 and 29, Oztaskent teaches the method of claim 13; Oztaskent further teaches: the determining the one or more return captions comprises determining the one or more return captions separately from signals, associated with the content that was sent for presentation, that are transmitted to the at least one user device [the closed captioning data is captured by capture device 104 and provided to Audience measurement servers 112, which is separate from audio/video signals which are received by receiver 102a and multimedia system 106 (col. 15, line 22 through col. 16, line 25, Fig. 1A-1B and 3)].
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.
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oztaskent et al. (US 9,485,525) in view of Diggins (US 2017/0302989).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Oztaskent teaches the method of claim 1; Oztaskent does not explicitly disclose: the determining the one or more return captions comprises performing optical character recognition of the content that was sent for presentation on the user device.
Diggins teaches: the determining the one or more return captions comprises performing optical character recognition of the content that was sent for presentation on the user device [Extraction of the text from the images by OCR, followed by text-text correlation as described in the previous section is an obvious way forward (par. 60)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oztaskent and Diggins before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Oztaskent by incorporating the teaching of Diggins such that the determining the one or more return captions comprises performing optical character recognition of the content that was sent for presentation on the user device. The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to compare captions that can exist in multiple different formats (Diggins – par. 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Oztaskent and Diggins to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 7-11 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oztaskent et al. (US 9,485,525) in view of Brown et al. (US 2011/0179445).
Regarding claims 7 and 22, Oztaskent teaches: A method and an apparatus comprising:
determining one or more scheduled captions of scheduled content in a first time window [Fig. 3 illustrates a time window t1 corresponding to a program segment A received by measurement service capture device 110 that captures closed captioning data embedded in the segment A (col. 15, line 22 through col. 16, line 25, Fig. 3)]
determining, based on the first time window a second time window [Fig. 3 illustrates time window t1, an offset from t1 being times t2 and t3, and determining a time window t4 after the offset (col. 15, line 22 through col. 16, line 25, Fig. 3)]
determining one or more return captions of return content in the second time window [T4 is illustrated as corresponding to program segment B received by client capture device 104 that captures closed captioning data in the segment B (col. 15, line 22 through col. 16, line 25, Fig. 3)]
comparing the one or more scheduled captions with the one or more return captions; and confirming, based on the comparing, delivery of an item of the scheduled content [based on matching closed captioning data captured by capture device 104 with closed captioning data captured by capture device 110, confirming that the user watched the program (col. 15, line 22 through col. 16, line 25, Fig. 3)].
Oztaskent does not explicitly disclose: the one or more scheduled captions are determined based on a content insertion signal.
Brown teaches: the one or more scheduled captions are determined based on a content insertion signal [SCTE-35 provides mechanisms for signaling the availability of local interstitial availabilities (such as local commercial messages). The SCTE-35 message indicates that a splice point occurs in four (4) seconds, for example. Based on this determining contextual information such as, for example, subtitles, closed-captioning information in proximity to this point (par. 19-20, 22, and 24, Fig. 2))].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oztaskent and Brown before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Oztaskent by incorporating the teaching of Brown such that the one or more scheduled captions are determined based on a content insertion signal. The motivation for doing so would have been to more closely target their advertising to the viewers (Brown – par. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Oztaskent and Brown to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 8 and 23, Oztaskent and Brown teach the method of claim 7; Brown further teaches: the content insertion signal comprises an SCTE- 35 signal [SCTE-35 signaling (par. 20)].
Regarding claim 9, Oztaskent and Brown teach the method of claim 7; Oztaskent further teaches: the one or more return captions were generated for delivery within the second time window [Fig. 3 illustrates the window t4 and corresponding program segment B delivered within this window, with program segment B received by client capture device 104 that captures closed captioning data in the segment B (col. 15, line 22 through col. 16, line 25, Fig. 3)].
Regarding claim 10, Oztaskent and Brown teach the method of claim 7; Oztaskent further teaches: the one or more scheduled captions are scheduled to occur within the first time window [Fig. 3 illustrates the window t1 and corresponding program segment A scheduled within this window, with measurement service capture device 110 that captures closed captioning data embedded in the segment A (col. 15, line 22 through col. 16, line 25, Fig. 3)].
Regarding claims 11 and 24, Oztaskent and Brown teach the method of claim 7; Oztaskent further teaches: the confirming comprises sending a message indicating delivery of an item of content associated with the one or more scheduled captions [confirming includes keeping track of which devices have received which programs (col. 15, line 48 through col. 16, line 12) and providing a response to a broadcaster, advertiser, producer, panel provider, marketer, analyst, or other entity (col. 21, line 39 through col. 22, line 23)].
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oztaskent et al. (US 9,485,525) in view of Brown et al. (US 2011/0179445) and further in view of Diggins (US 2017/0302989).
Regarding claims 12 and 25, Oztaskent and Brown teach the method of claim 7; Oztaskent and Brown do not explicitly disclose: the determining the one or more return captions comprises performing optical character recognition of the return content.
Diggins teaches: the determining the one or more return captions comprises performing optical character recognition of the return content [Extraction of the text from the images by OCR, followed by text-text correlation as described in the previous section is an obvious way forward (par. 60)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oztaskent, Brown, and Diggins before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Oztaskent and Brown, by incorporating the teaching of Diggins such that the determining the one or more return captions comprises performing optical character recognition of the content that was sent for presentation on the user device. The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to compare captions that can exist in multiple different formats (Diggins – par. 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Oztaskent and Brown with Diggins to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Boyd whose telephone number is (571)270-0676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm PST.
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.
/ALEXANDER BOYD/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights