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 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).
Regarding claim 2, Venkatraman et al. discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
causing a first video to be played at a device (see paragraphs 0002, 0031; 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 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), and
wherein metadata of the second video and metadata of the third video relate to metadata of the first video (see paragraph 0004; metadata-based similarity. Extracting the one or more tagged videos from the digitally processed repository of videos. The one or more tagged videos are related to the set of preference data of the user. The one or more mapped fragments are segregated based on a positive mapping of keywords from the set of preference data with the set of tags associated with each tagged fragment of the one or more tagged fragments and the meta information associated with the one or more tagged fragments. The semantic context information includes an object specific context information and scene specific context information of each mapped fragment and each logical set of mapped fragments).
However, Venkatraman et al. is silent as to determining that a 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 than a threshold period of time (see paragraph 0031; 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”);
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);
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 paragraph 0031 and fig. 3; the recommended feature popup menu 302 can be displayed over the main screen display 301. Fig. 3 shows the overlay positioned on top of the video); and
receiving input in relation to the first identifier (see paragraph 0033; 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 paragraph 0033; 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.
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).
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. in view of Ashbrook et al. 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. 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 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. and Ashbrook et al. 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. 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. 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 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. and Ashbrook et al. with the teaching of Lindholm et al., the motivation being to display each content’s representation.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Venkatraman et al., Ashbrook et al. and Lindholm et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 9 and 19). 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. in view of Ashbrook et al. 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. and Ashbrook et al. 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. 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 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. and Ashbrook et al. 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. 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
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 March 30, 2026.
Prosecution Insights