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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aher et al. Pub. No.: US 20210392408 (Hereinafter “Aher”).
Regarding Claim 1, Aher discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, during playback of a video on a display of a device of a user, a user input at a first timestamp of the video (see paragraphs [0026-0027] and [0043]);
in response to receiving the user input at the first timestamp of the video, determining whether the first timestamp is associated with a skippable segment within the video (see paragraphs [0034] and [0043]); and
in response to determining that the first timestamp is associated with a skippable segment within the video, identifying a second timestamp associated with the skippable segment of the video as a skip location (see paragraphs [0029], [0034] and [0044]).
Regarding Claim 2, Aher discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Aher further discloses providing, for presentation on the device, a user interface element controllable by the user to skip playback of the video to the skip location (see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3 and paragraphs [0049], [0053], [0059]); and in response to receiving an input to the user interface element, skipping playback of the video to the skip location by causing the video to be played from the second timestamp (see paragraphs [0029] and [0044]).
Regarding Claim 3, Aher discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Aher further discloses skipping playback of the video to the skip location by causing the video to be played from the second timestamp (see paragraphs [0029] and [0044]).
Regarding Claim 4, Aher discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Aher further discloses providing, for presentation on the device, an indicator for the skip location (see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3 and paragraphs [0049], [0053], [0059]).
Regarding Claim 5, Aher discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Aher further discloses wherein the user input is a request to skip a portion of the video (see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3 and paragraphs [0043], [0046], [0050], [0057]).
Regarding Claim 6, Aher discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Aher further discloses maintaining data identifying one or more skippable segments within the video, and wherein determining whether the first timestamp is associated with a skippable segment within the video comprises determining whether the first timestamp is part of one of the one or more skippable segments (see paragraphs [0030-0031], [0034] and [0036]).
Regarding Claim 19, Aher discloses a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that when executed by the one or more computers cause the one or more computers (see fig.11) to perform the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, Aher discloses a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that when executed by the one or more computers cause the one or more computers (see fig.11) to perform the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 2.
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher et al. Pub. No.: US 20210392408 (Hereinafter “Aher”) in view of Patel et al. Pub. No.: US 20170006252 (Hereinafter “Patel”).
Regarding Claim 7, Aher discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 6. Aher further discloses wherein the data identifying one or more skippable segments within the video comprises, for each skippable segment, a respective start timestamp and a respective end timestamp, and wherein determining whether the first timestamp is part of one of the one or more skippable segments (see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3 and paragraphs [0043], [0046], [0050], [0057]).
Aher fails to disclose:
for each of the one or more skippable segments, determining whether an amount of time between the first timestamp and the respective end timestamp for the skippable segment meets a threshold amount of time.
In analogous art, Patel teaches:
for each of the one or more skippable segments, determining whether an amount of time between the first timestamp and the respective end timestamp for the skippable segment meets a threshold amount of time (see fig.6D, paragraphs [0103] and [0159]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aher with the teaching as taught by Patel in order to improve user experience by reducing the need for multiple skip commands, minimizing interruptions, and preventing users from being forced to view unwanted content.
Regarding Claim 8, Aher discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Aher fails to disclose:
wherein the skippable segment is defined by a start timestamp and an end timestamp, and wherein identifying a second timestamp associated with the skippable segment within the video as a skip location comprises identifying a timestamp that is a threshold amount of time before the end timestamp as the second timestamp.
In analogous art, Patel teaches:
wherein the skippable segment is defined by a start timestamp and an end timestamp, and wherein identifying a second timestamp associated with the skippable segment within the video as a skip location comprises identifying a timestamp that is a threshold amount of time before the end timestamp as the second timestamp (see fig.6D, paragraphs [0103] and [0159]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aher with the teaching as taught by Patel in order to improve user experience by reducing the need for multiple skip commands, minimizing interruptions, and preventing users from being forced to view unwanted content.
Claims 9-10 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher et al. Pub. No.: US 20210392408 (Hereinafter “Aher”) in view of Kim et al. Pub. No.: US 20140178044 (Hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 9, Aher discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining data identifying one or more segments within a video, wherein each of the one or more segments spans a corresponding segment time range within the video (see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3, abstract, paragraphs [0027], [0034] and [0039]);
obtaining one or more time ranges within the video, wherein each time range has been designated as a time range within the video that has been skipped by users (see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3, abstract, paragraphs [0027], [0034] and [0039]);
for each of the one or more segments (see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3, abstract, paragraphs [0030] and [0031]):
for each of the one or more time ranges (see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3, abstract, paragraphs [0027], [0034] and [0039]):
Aher fails to disclose:
determining a respective overlap of the time range with the corresponding segment time range for the segment;
determining whether the respective overlap meets a threshold overlap; and
in response to determining that the respective overlap meets the threshold overlap, identifying the segment as a skippable segment within the video.
In analogous art, Kim teaches:
determining a respective overlap of the time range with the corresponding segment time range for the segment (see fig. 6 and paragraphs [0088]- [0089]);
determining whether the respective overlap meets a threshold overlap (see paragraph [0057]); and
in response to determining that the respective overlap meets the threshold overlap, identifying the segment as a skippable segment within the video (see paragraphs [0073]- [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aher with the teaching as taught by Kim. Such a modification would enable more efficient and automated playback of moving picture files in a sequence without requiring user intervention, thereby improving usability and facilitating seamless viewing on portable terminals.
Regarding Claim 10, Aher in view of Kim discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 9. Aher further discloses determining that the video has a threshold number of user interactions, comprising: obtaining a number of views for the video and a number of skips for the video (see paragraphs [0027, [0039] and [0049]); and determining that the number of views meets a threshold number of views and that the number of skips meets a threshold number of skips (see paragraphs [0027], [0039] and [0049]).
Regarding Claim 13, Aher in view of Kim discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 9. Kim further discloses wherein each designated time range has been skipped in a threshold proportion of views of the video (see paragraphs [0073]- [0075]).
Regarding Claim 14, Aher in view of Kim discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 9. Aher further discloses for each of the identified skippable segments within the video, identifying a respective second timestamp associated with the identified skippable segment as a respective skip location(see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3, abstract, paragraphs [0027], [0034] and [0039]).
Regarding Claim 15, Aher in view of Kim discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 9. Aher further discloses receiving, during playback of the video on a display of a device of a user, a user input at a first timestamp of the video (see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3, abstract, paragraphs [0027], [0034] and [0039]); in response to receiving the user input at the first timestamp of the video, determining whether the first timestamp is associated with a skippable segment of the identified skippable segments within the video; and in response to determining that the first timestamp is associated with a skippable segment of the identified skippable segments within the video, identifying a second timestamp associated with the skippable segment within the video as a skip location (see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3, abstract, paragraphs [0027], [0034] and [0039]).
Regarding Claim 16, Aher in view of Kim discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 15. Aher further discloses providing, for presentation on the device, a user interface element controllable by the user to skip playback of the video to the skip location (see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3, abstract, paragraphs [0027], [0034] and [0039]); and in response to receiving an input to the user interface element, skipping playback of the video to the skip location by causing the video to be played from the second timestamp (see paragraphs [0029], [0034] and [0044]).
Regarding Claim 17, Aher in view of Kim discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 15. Aher further discloses skipping playback of the video to the skip location by causing the video to be played from the second timestamp (see paragraphs [0029], [0034] and [0044]).
Regarding Claim 18, Aher in view of Kim discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 15. Aher further discloses providing, for presentation on the device, an indicator for the skip location (see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aher et al. Pub. No.: US 20210392408 (Hereinafter “Aher”) in view of Kim et al. Pub. No.: US 20140178044 (Hereinafter “Kim”), further in view of Seyed Fathi et al. Pub No.: US 20240193207 (Hereinafter “Seyed Fathi”).
Regarding Claim 11, Aher in view of Kim discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 9. Aher further discloses identifying the one or more segments within the video (see figs. 1, 2A-2B, 3, abstract, paragraphs [0027], [0034] and [0039]),
Aher in view of Kim fail to disclose:
processing a prompt comprising at least a text transcript for the video using a language model neural network to generate an output identifying one or more portions of text of the text transcript, each corresponding to a segment within the video; and identifying one or more segments within the video from the portions of text.
In analogous art, Seyed Fathi teaches:
processing a prompt comprising at least a text transcript for the video using a language model neural network to generate an output identifying one or more portions of text of the text transcript, each corresponding to a segment within the video (see paragraphs [0046] and [0077]-[0078]); and identifying one or more segments within the video from the portions of text (see fig.9 and paragraph [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Aher and Kim with the teaching as taught by Seyed Fathi in order to automatically identify content segments of media content that belong to one or more identified scene types and display the content segments organized by the different scene types, thereby excessive user navigation to identify scenes within media files and organize the media files are avoided.
Regarding Claim 12, Aher and Kim in view of Seyed Fathi discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 11. Aher further discloses wherein identifying the one or more segments within the video further comprises: obtaining a segment start timestamp and a segment end timestamp for each of the one or more segments within the video based on the portion of text corresponding to each segment (see fig.9 and paragraph [0125]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alazar Tilahun whose telephone number is (571)270-5712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, From 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
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.
/ALAZAR TILAHUN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/A.T/
March 03, 2026