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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1–20 have been submitted for examination.
Claims 1–20 have been examined and rejected.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1–18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,582 .
US 19/088,528
US 12,273,582 Claim 1
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause:
A method comprising:
receiving content, wherein the content comprises audio and closed caption text;
receiving content, wherein the content comprises audio and closed captioned text;
determining text associated with at least a portion of the audio;
determining text associated with at least a portion of the audio;
determining, based on a comparison of the determined text to at least a portion of the closed caption text, a synchronization point corresponding to one or more matching portions;
determining, based on a comparison of the determined text to at least a portion of the closed captioned text, a synchronization point corresponding to one or more matching portions;
determining, based on the synchronization point, first timing data associated with the closed caption text and
determining, based on the synchronization point, first timing data associated with the closed captioned text and
second timing data associated with the determined text;
second timing data associated with the determined text;
determining, based on a comparison of the first timing data and the second timing data, a misalignment between the audio and the closed caption text; and
determining, based on a comparison of the first timing data and the second timing data, a misalignment between the audio and the closed captioned text; and
realigning, based on the determined misalignment, the audio and the closed caption text.
realigning, based on the determined misalignment, the audio and the closed captioned text.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,582. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 10 are anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table above. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
Instant dependent claims 2–9, and 11–18 contain similar limitations as patented dependent claims 2–20 and are rejected for similar reasons as independent claims 1 and 10.
Claims 19–36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,785,278 in view of Kim et al. (US 2011/0040559).
US 19/088,528
US 11,785,278 Claim 1
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause:
A method comprising:
receiving content, wherein the content comprises audio and closed caption text;
receiving content, wherein the content comprises at least video, audio, and closed caption text;
determining text associated with at least a portion of the audio;
determining, based on at least a portion of the audio or a portion of the video, text associated with the at least the portion of the audio or the portion of the video;
determining, based on a comparison of the determined text to at least a portion of the closed caption text, a synchronization point corresponding to one or more matching portions;
determining, based on a timeline associated with the content,
determining, based on the synchronization point, first timing data associated with the closed caption text and
a first time marker associated with the closed caption text;
second timing data associated with the determined text;
determining, based on the timeline associated with the content and a comparison of the determined text to at least a portion of the closed caption text, a second time marker associated with the determined text;
determining, based on a comparison of the first timing data and the second timing data, a misalignment between the audio and the closed caption text; and
determining, based on a comparison of the first time marker and the second time marker, a delay; and
realigning, based on the determined misalignment, the audio and the closed caption text.
buffering, based on the determined delay, at least one of the audio or video of the content.
The conflicting independent claims 19 and 28 of 19/088,528 and claim 1 of US 11,785,278 are not identical. However, 19/088,528’s claims are obvious over US 11,785,278’s claims in view of Kim et al. (see the table above). US 11,785,278 does not teach a synchronization point corresponding to one or more matching portions;
Kim et al. teaches a synchronization point corresponding to one or more matching portions; ([0024–5]) .
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine US 11,785,278 and Kim, the motivation being to better align caption text with audiovisual content.
The examiner’s position is that US 11,785,278’s claims in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations of the above-mentioned independent claims of 19/088,528.
Instant dependent claims 20–27, and 29–36 contain similar limitations as patented dependent claims 2–22 and are rejected for similar reasons as independent claims 19, and 28.
Claims 1–36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–27 of U.S. Application No. 19/088,622 .
US 19/088,528
US 19/088,622 Claim 1
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause:
A method comprising:
receiving content, wherein the content comprises audio and closed caption text;
receiving content comprising audio and closed caption text;
determining text associated with at least a portion of the audio;
determining text associated with at least a portion of the audio;
determining, based on a comparison of the determined text to at least a portion of the closed caption text, a synchronization point corresponding to one or more matching portions;
determining, based on the synchronization point, first timing data associated with the closed caption text and
determining first timing data associated with the closed caption text and
second timing data associated with the determined text;
second timing data associated with the determined text;
determining, based on a comparison of the first timing data and the second timing data, a misalignment between the audio and the closed caption text; and
determining, based on a comparison of the first timing data and the second timing data, a misalignment between the audio and the closed caption text; and
realigning, based on the determined misalignment, the audio and the closed caption text.
causing, based on the determined misalignment, output of the audio relative to the closed caption text to reduce the misalignment.
The conflicting independent claims 19 and 28 of 19/088,528 and claim 1 of US 19/088,622 are not identical. However, 19/088,528’s claims are obvious over US 19/088,622’s claims in view of Kim et al. (see the table above). US 19/088,622 does not teach determining, based on a comparison of the determined text to at least a portion of the closed caption text, a synchronization point corresponding to one or more matching portions;
Kim et al. teaches determining, based on a comparison of the determined text to at least a portion of the closed caption text, a synchronization point corresponding to one or more matching portions; ([0024–5]) .
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine US 19/088,622 and Kim, the motivation being to better align caption text with audiovisual content.
The examiner’s position is that US 19/088,622 ’s claims in view of Kim et al. discloses all the limitations of the above-mentioned independent claims of 19/088,528.
Instant dependent claims 2–9, and 11–18 contain similar limitations as patented dependent claims 2–27 and are rejected for similar reasons as independent claims 1 and 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B PIERORAZIO whose telephone number is (571)270-3679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8am - 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 5712704195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL B. PIERORAZIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights