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 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply in view of newly found reference Madhusudhana being used in the current rejection. See the new rejection below.
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 2-5, 8-15, 18-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 10,341,742 to Kim (“Kim”) in view of US PG Pub 2022/0068310 to Madhusudhana (“Madhusudhana”).
Regarding claim 2, “A method comprising: causing media content to be played at a device in a media presentation environment” reads on the method/system where the media guidance application of the device generates for display the selected media asset with segments (2:24-26, 49-53) disclosed by Kim and represented in Fig. 8.
As to “detecting, while a segment of the media content is playing, that a noise level of background noise in the media presentation environment exceeds a threshold” Kim discloses (17:6-16; 39:40-51) that the device determines that the user is disregarding the segment of media asset by analyzing a noise level of a room corresponding to a display as represented in Fig. 8 (element 804); (4:64-5:15; 17:6-14) noise level is above a threshold maximum noise level (first noise level).
As to “determining that the segment is important” Kim discloses (25:43-56) that based on the segment importance level, the system determines if the segment is important or not important, the device determines whether to replay the segment.
As to “based at least in part on determining that the segment is important and that the noise level of background noise in the media presentation environment exceeds the threshold, causing presentation of a notification comprising an option, wherein the segment is replayed unless the option is selected” Kim discloses (39:66-40:6) that when its determined that user is distracted from viewing the media when the noise level in the room is above the threshold, the device presents/replays the media asset from the beginning of the segment as represented in Fig. 8 (element 808); (12:66-13:22) the user is provided with a display screen including an alert that the user has previously missed content in a media asset where the user has an option to select “dismiss” to remove alert and continue to play the current segment as represented in Fig. 1 (element 124).
Kim meets all the limitations of the claim except “wherein the segment is replayed unless the option is selected; and causing the segment to be replayed.” However, Madhusudhana discloses (¶0052, ¶0054) that when the system detects missed segment due to loss of attention in the content, the viewer is provided with an option “Rewind/Replay” icon on the display, and when selected by a user, the system automatically causes the device to rewind playback of the content to the location when the user missed the segment as represented in Fig. 6B (element 670); (¶0060-¶0062) the system monitors touch screen for entry of the user selection, and when it does not receive selection from the user, the device continues the content and monitors the selection as represented in Fig. 8B.
Even though replaying the segment occurs after selection of an option in Madhusudhana, the general teaching of replaying/continuing the content based on the option is disclosed by Madhusudhana. Replaying/Continue playing the content is widely known and also taught by Kim and Madhusudhana et al. One skilled in the art would have selected to automatically replay segment without selection of an option instead of selecting an option is likely a product of ordinary skill and common sense, not of innovation. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to not provide an option to replay segment automatically, instead of using an option to replay segment since it does not produce unexpected result. It appears that the invention would perform equally well with the selection of an option to replay segment of Madhusudhana. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim’s system by causing the segment to be replayed based on the user input as taught by Madhusudhana in order to automatically replay the missed portion due.
Regarding claim 3, “The method of claim 2, wherein the segment is a first segment, the noise level of background noise is a first noise level, and the method further comprising: detecting, while a second segment of the media content is playing, that a second noise level of background noise in the media presentation environment exceeds the threshold; determining that the second segment is important; and based at least in part on determining that the segment is important and that the second noise level of background noise in the media presentation environment exceeds the threshold, causing presentation of a notification comprising the option in relation to the second segment; and based at least in part on determining that selection of the option in relation to the second segment has been received, causing the media content to resume without replaying the second segment” Kim discloses (13:23-47) the media guidance application determines that the user missed segment 108 and segment 112 when viewing the media asset as represented in Fig. 1 (elements 108, 112); (17:6-16; 39:40-51) the device determines that the user is disregarding the segment of media asset by analyzing a noise level of a room corresponding to a display as represented in Fig. 8 (element 804); (4:64-5:15; 17:6-14) noise level is above a threshold maximum noise level (first noise level); (25:43-56) based on the segment importance level, the system determines if the segment is important or not important, the device determines whether to replay the segment; (39:66-40:6) when its determined that user is distracted from viewing the media when the noise level in the room is above the threshold, the device presents/replays the media asset from the beginning of the segment as represented in Fig. 8 (element 808); (12:66-13:22) the user is provided with a display screen including an alert that the user has previously missed content in a media asset where the user has an option to select “dismiss” to remove alert and continue to play the current segment as represented in Fig. 1 (element 124), and Madhusudhana discloses (¶0052, ¶0054) that when the system detects missed segment due to loss of attention in the content, the viewer is provided with an option “Rewind/Replay” icon on the display, and when selected by a user, the system automatically causes the device to rewind playback of the content to the location when the user missed the segment as represented in Fig. 6B (element 670); (¶0060-¶0062) the system monitors touch screen for entry of the user selection, and when it does not receive selection from the user, the device continues the content and monitors the selection as represented in Fig. 8B.
Even though replaying the segment occurs after selection of an option in Madhusudhana, the general teaching of replaying/continuing the content based on the option is disclosed by Madhusudhana. Replaying/Continue playing the content is widely known and also taught by Kim and Madhusudhana et al. One skilled in the art would have selected to automatically replay segment without selection of an option instead of selecting an option is likely a product of ordinary skill and common sense, not of innovation. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to not provide an option to replay segment automatically, instead of using an option to replay segment since it does not produce unexpected result. It appears that the invention would perform equally well with the selection of an option to replay segment of Madhusudhana.
Regarding claim 4, “The method of claim 2, wherein: the notification further comprises an indication that the segment is being replayed based on the detecting of the background noise” Kim discloses (39:66-40:6) that when its determined that user is distracted from viewing the media when the noise level in the room is above the threshold, the device presents/replays the media asset from the beginning of the segment as represented in Fig. 8 (element 808).
Regarding claim 5, “The method of claim 2, wherein: the notification is simultaneously displayed at the device with the segment” Kim discloses (13:1-6) that while the display screen is depicted having media asset generated for display on display, when the system detects that the user is distracted, display provides an alert alerting the user that content that was previously missed is detected as represented in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 8, “The method of claim 2, wherein the segment of the media content is initially played without subtitles, and causing the segment to be replayed comprises: causing the segment to be played with the subtitles” Salvador discloses (7:20-39, claim 8) that the subtitle activation data include information associated with a volume level associated with playback of the video, where the device determines that the current volume level is less than a volume threshold, the device activates the subtitle and further increase a volume level associated with playback of the video.
Regarding claim 9, “The method of claim 8, wherein: the threshold is a first threshold; and causing the segment to be played with the subtitles is based at least in part on determining that the noise level of background noise in the media presentation environment while the segment of the media content is being played exceeds a second threshold that is higher than the first threshold” Salvador discloses (15:28-41) that when the device detects it is difficult to hear/understand the current segment, the device replays the segment and activates subtitle associated with the segment during playback of the video from the previous position as represented in Fig. 4 (element 440); (6:52-7:4) the device determines if the environmental noise level is greater than a first environment noise threshold or less than a second environmental noise threshold determine whether to replay content with subtitles.
Regarding claim 10, “The method of claim 2, wherein the segment of the media content is initially played without subtitles and at a first volume, and causing the segment to be replayed comprises: causing the segment to be played without the subtitles and at a second volume that is higher than the first volume” Salvador discloses (15:28-41) that when the device detects it is difficult to hear/understand the current segment, the device replays the segment and activates subtitle associated with the segment during playback of the video from the previous position as represented in Fig. 4 (element 440); (6:52-7:4) the device determines if the environmental noise level is greater than a first environment noise threshold (first noise level) or less than a second environmental noise threshold (second noise level) to determine whether to replay content with subtitles.
Regarding claim 11, “The method of claim 10 wherein: the threshold is a first threshold; and causing the segment to be played without the subtitles and at the second volume is based at least in part on determining that the noise level of background noise in the media presentation environment while the segment of the media content is being played exceeds the first threshold but does not exceed a second threshold that is higher than the first threshold” Salvador discloses (15:28-41) that when the device detects it is difficult to hear/understand the current segment, the device replays the segment and activates subtitle associated with the segment during playback of the video from the previous position as represented in Fig. 4 (element 440); (6:52-7:4) the device determines if the environmental noise level is greater than a first environment noise threshold (first noise level) or less than a second environmental noise threshold (second noise level) to determine whether to replay content with subtitles.
Regarding claim 12, see rejection similar to claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, see rejection similar to claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection similar to claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, see rejection similar to claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection similar to claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, see rejection similar to claim 9.
Regarding claim 22, “The method of claim 2, wherein the determining that the segment is important is based at least in part on a metadata flag of the segment indicating an important event in the segment” Kim discloses (22:9-17) that the divide receives metadata in a content stream which detects flags in the metadata indicating portions of the media asset; (25:17-23, 43-56) the device uses the metadata information to identify if the segment is important to the user.
Regarding claim 23, “A method comprising: causing media content to be played at a device in a media presentation environment” reads on the method/system where the media guidance application of the device generates for display the selected media asset with segments (2:24-26, 49-53) disclosed by Kim and represented in Fig. 8.
As to “detecting, while a first segment of the media content is playing, that a first noise level of background noise in the media presentation environment exceeds a threshold” Kim discloses (17:6-16; 39:40-51) that the device determines that the user is disregarding the segment of media asset by analyzing a noise level of a room corresponding to a display as represented in Fig. 8 (element 804); (4:64-5:15; 17:6-14) noise level is above a threshold maximum noise level (first noise level).
As to “determining that the first segment is important” Kim discloses (25:43-56) that based on the segment importance level, the system determines if the segment is important or not important, the device determines whether to replay the segment.
As to “based at least in part on determining that the first segment is important and that the first noise level of background noise in the media presentation environment exceeds the threshold, causing presentation of a first notification comprising an option, wherein selection of the option causes the first segment not to be replayed; determining that selection of the option has been received; and based at least in part on determining that selection of the option has been received, refraining from causing the first segment to be replayed; detecting, while a second segment of the media content is playing, that a second noise level of background noise in the media presentation environment exceeds the threshold; and based at least in part on determining that the second segment is important and that the second noise level of background noise in the media presentation environment exceeds the threshold, generating for display a second notification indicating that the second segment will be replayed; and causing the second segment to be replayed” Kim discloses (39:66-40:6) that when its determined that user is distracted from viewing the media when the noise level in the room is above the threshold, the device presents/replays the media asset from the beginning of the segment as represented in Fig. 8 (element 808); (12:66-13:22) the user is provided with a display screen including an alert that the user has previously missed content in a media asset where the user has an option to select “dismiss” to remove alert and continue to play the current segment as represented in Fig. 1 (element 124).
Kim meets all the limitations of the claim except “causing presentation of a first notification comprising an option, wherein selection of the option causes the first segment not be replayed; … generating for display a second notification indicating that the second segment will be replayed; and causing the second segment to be replayed.” However, Madhusudhana discloses (¶0052, ¶0054) that when the system detects missed segment due to loss of attention in the content, the viewer is provided with an option “Rewind/Replay” icon on the display, and when selected by a user, the system automatically causes the device to rewind playback of the content to the location when the user missed the segment as represented in Fig. 6B (element 670); (¶0060-¶0062) the system monitors touch screen for entry of the user selection, and when it does not receive selection from the user, the device continues the content and monitors the selection as represented in Fig. 8B.
Even though replaying the segment occurs after selection of an option in Madhusudhana, the general teaching of replaying/continuing the content based on the option is disclosed by Madhusudhana. Replaying/Continue playing the content is widely known and also taught by Kim and Madhusudhana et al. One skilled in the art would have selected to automatically replay segment without selection of an option instead of selecting an option is likely a product of ordinary skill and common sense, not of innovation. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to not provide an option to replay segment automatically, instead of using an option to replay segment since it does not produce unexpected result. It appears that the invention would perform equally well with the selection of an option to replay segment of Madhusudhana. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim’s system by causing the segment to be replayed based on the user input as taught by Madhusudhana in order to automatically replay the missed portion due.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Madhusudhana, and further in view of US Patent 9,852,773 to Salvador (“Salvador”).
Regarding claim 6, combination of Kim and Madhusudhana meets all the limitations of the claim except “The method of claim 2, wherein causing the segment to be replayed comprises: causing the segment to be replayed at a higher volume as compared to a volume of the segment of the media content when the segment is initially played.” However, Salvador discloses (7:20-39, claim 8) that the device determines that the current volume level is less than a volume threshold, the device activates the subtitle and further increase a volume level associated with playback of the video. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim and Madhusudhana’s systems by replaying segment at a higher volume level as taught by Salvador so the user can hear and understand the segment properly.
Regarding claim 16, see rejection similar to claim 6.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Madhusudhana and Salvador, and further in view of US PG Pub 2019/0149584 to DiBello (“DiBello”).
Regarding claim 7, combination of Kim, Madhusudhana, and Salvador meets all the limitations of the claim except “The method of claim 6, wherein: the notification further comprises information indicating that the segment of the media content will be replayed at the higher volume.” However, DiBello discloses (¶0039) that the media guidance application presents a notification on the display on which the media content is being accessed where the notification indicates that the volume is increased as represented in Fig. 1 (element 106). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system that notifies a user about missed content of Kim to include the notification indicating volume increased taught by DiBello. This would have been desirable as it would have automatically adjusted volume and inform the viewer to avoid distractions by manually adjusting volume of the media asset that they are experiencing (DiBello - ¶0002). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized this as a combination of known elements in the art that would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, see rejection similar to claim 7.
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 PINKAL R CHOKSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-5pm.
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 T 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.
/PINKAL R CHOKSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights