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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7+ of the Remarks, filed 07/08/2029, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Datar (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0249185) and Park (U.S. Pub. 2008/0126303).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 8, 11, 12, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatraman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0021872) in view of Ashbrook et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0082426) and further in view of Datar (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0249185) and Park (U.S. Pub. 2008/0126303).
Regarding claim 2, Venkatraman et al. discloses a computer-implemented method (see paragraph 0031 and fig. 1), comprising:
causing a first video to be played at a device (see paragraphs 0002, 0031, 0044-0045, 0082; video switching system 114 serves the live video fetched from a live feed database to the user 102a);
causing simultaneous display at the device of a first identifier for a second video and a second identifier for a third video (see paragraph 0005, 0031, 0050, 0085 and fig. 2a; fig. 2a shows R1, R2, R3 displayed together in the “recommendation sidebar (RS1)”. Recommending a set of video recommendations to the user),
wherein the first identifier is overlayed on the first video at a first position and the second identifier is overlayed on the first video at a second position (see paragraphs 0050, 0085 and fig. 2A; first recommendation R1 and second recommendation R2 are displayed in the bottom region of media player P1, while third recommendation R3 is displayed in recommendation sidebar RS1. Fig. 2A illustrates R1 and R2 as separate recommendation elements associated with different locations in the player interface).
However, Venkatraman et al. is silent as to determining that the period of time remaining in the playing of the first video is equal to or less than a threshold period of time; based at least in part on determining that the period of time remaining in the playing of the first video is equal to or less than the threshold period of time,
wherein the first identifier is overlayed on the first video at a first position and the second identifier is overlayed on the first video at a second position, and receiving input in relation to the first identifier; and causing the second video to be played based at least in part on the received input.
Ashbrook et al. discloses determining that a period of time remaining in the playing of the first video is equal to or less a threshold period of time (see paragraphs 0031-0032; displaying the recommended feature popup menu 302 automatically once the main feature (for example, a movie) has finished and the credits are rolling. Figure 4 (steps 401-403) shows trigger at “credit begin”. Paragraph 0032 states that, once the credits begin or at another suitable time, the recommended feature application reveals recommendation prompt 403);
based at least in part on determining that the period of time remaining in the playing of the first video is equal to or less than the threshold period of time, displaying recommended content (see paragraph 0031 and fig. 3; displaying recommended content in response to the video ending); and
receiving input in relation to the first identifier (see paragraphs 0033, 0050, 0082, 0085; if the user selects play now 407, the user is taken to the recommended feature 408 and fig. 3 shows clickable overlay elements); and
causing the second video to be played based at least in part on the received input (see paragraphs 0033, 0082, 0085; if the user selects play now 407, the user is taken to the recommended feature 408).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Venkatraman et al. with the teachings of Ashbrook et al., the motivation being to enhance user navigation and engagement.
However, Venkatraman et al. and Ashbrook et al. did not expressly disclose processing video content containing people or characters.
Datar discloses processing video content containing people or characters (see paragraphs 0031, 0033, 0035-0036, 0040 and fig. 2; annotation containing the text “Vice President”);
while the person or the character is being depicted in the first video (see paragraphs 0031, 0033, 0036-0037; Datar teaches that display events and associated overlays may be temporally tied to the particular video frames presently displayed).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Venkatraman et al. and Ashbrook et al. with the teachings of Datar, the motivation being presentation of the recommendation during a predetermined near-end portion of playback.
However, Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al. and Datar are silent as to the display of the first identifier and the second identifier is based at least in part on determining that metadata of the second video and metadata of the third video relate to metadata of the first video.
Park discloses display of the first identifier and the second identifier is based at least in part on determining that metadata of the second video and metadata of the third video relate to metadata of the first video (see paragraphs 0035, 0065-0066, 0070-0071, 0074-0075; the metadata search identifies recommended or similar media-content items based on media-content items having metadata related to the metadata of another media-content item. It further states that the resulting second set contains one or more items with metadata “related to or matching” the metadata associated with the initial media content).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al. and Datar the teachings of Park, the motivation being to improve the contextual relevance of the displayed recommendations.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Venkatraman et al. and Ashbrook et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 2 and 12). Ashbrook et al. discloses wherein the method further comprises: prior to the determining, based at least in part on determining that a period of time remaining in the playing of the first video exceeds the threshold period of time, refraining from causing any identifiers to be overlayed on the first video (see paragraph 0031, fig. 4 (401-403); there is no overlay before the end of the video).
Regarding claims 11 and 21, Venkatraman et al. and Ashbrook et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 2 and 12). Ashbrook et al. discloses wherein each of the second video and the third video is not included in a runtime of the first video (see paragraphs 0031, 0017-0021 and fig. 3. Fig. 3 shows a recommendation feature thumbnail that is not part of the movie).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al., Datar and Park as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0024097).
Regarding claim 22, Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al., Datar and Park disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2). Although Ashbrook et al. suggests that the remaining playback time is nonzero when its recommendation prompt is displayed in paragraphs 0031-0033; recommendation pop-up menu 302 is displayed while the credits are rolling. Because the credits are still being played when the menu is displayed, playback has not ended and the amount of playback time remaining is greater than zero.
However, Lu explicitly discloses and provides additional support disclosing wherein the period of time remaining in the playing of the first video is a nonzero amount of time (see paragraph 0063, fig. 7; presenting secondary content at the eighth, twenty-first, and thirtieth seconds while an actress is depicted in the primary video).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al, Datar and Park with the teachings of Lu, the motivation being to display the preview images before the primary media content ends.
Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al., Datar and Park as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lindholm et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0301575).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al., Datar and Park disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claims 2 and 12). However, Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al., Datar and Park are silent as to wherein the input further comprises a request to modify the first position of the first identifier.
Lindholm et al. discloses wherein the input further comprises a request to modify the first position of the first identifier (see paragraphs 0664, 0672, 0697, fig. 18Z, 18AA, 18BB).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al., Datar and Park with the teaching of Lindholm et al., the motivation being to prevent obscuring the content item.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al., Datar, Park and Lindholm et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 3 and 13). Lindholm et al. discloses wherein the input further comprises a request to move the first identifier to the second position and to move the second identifier to the first position, wherein the first and second positions correspond to positions within an order, and the method further comprises causing the second video and the third video to be played based at least in part on the order (see paragraphs 0669-0670, 0697, figs. 18V, 18W, 18FF).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al., Datar and Park discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 2 and 12). However, Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al., Datar and Park are silent as to wherein the first identifier comprises a frame from the second video, and the second identifier comprises a frame from the third video.
Lindholm et al. discloses wherein the first identifier comprises a frame from the second video, and the second identifier comprises a frame from the third video (see paragraphs 0169, 0185, 0187, fig. 6N (620), fig. 6P (602b), fig. 6Q).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al., Datar and Park with the teaching of Lindholm et al., the motivation being to display each content’s representation.
Regarding claim 10, Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al., Datar, Park and Lindholm et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 9). Lindholm et al. discloses wherein the first identifier comprises text identifying the second video, and the second identifier comprises text identifying the third video (see fig. 6U (602b - TV Show G Title etc.)).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al., Datar and Park as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0044848).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Venkatraman et al. and Ashbrook et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 2 and 12). However, Venkatraman et al. and Ashbrook et al. are silent as to wherein the second video and the third video are identified based at least in part using a trained machine learning model.
Liu et al. discloses wherein the second video and the third video are identified based at least in part using a trained machine learning model (see paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al., Datar and Park with the teaching of Liu et al., the motivation being to provide a unique watch list for a user.
Claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatraman et al. in view of Ashbrook et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lewis et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,560,159).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al., Datar and Park discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 2 and 12). However, Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al., Datar and Park are silent as to wherein placement of the first identifier at the first position is based at least in part on a ranking of the second video, based at least in part on a comparison of metadata of the second video to metadata of the first video.
Lewis et al. discloses wherein placement of the first identifier at the first position is based at least in part on a ranking of the second video, based at least in part on a comparison of metadata of the second video to metadata of the first video (see col. 12, lines 47-59).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al., Datar and Park with the teaching of Lewis et al., the motivation being to initiate automatic playing of the highest ranked video.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al., Datar, Park and Lewis et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 6 and 16). Lewis et al. discloses wherein the ranking of the second video is further based at least in part on preferences of a profile associated with the device (see col. 12, lines 19-46, col. 15, lines 46-62, fig. 4 (302)).
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 NNENNA NGOZI EKPO whose telephone number is (571)270-1663. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 10:00am - 6:30pm, TH-F 8:00am - 4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
NNENNA EKPO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/NNENNA N EKPO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 August 27, 2026.
Prosecution Insights