DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is in response to application filed on 5/27/2025, in which claim 1 was presented for examination.
3. A preliminary amendment was filed on 11/6/2025, in which claim 1 was canceled, and claims 2 – 21 was added.
4. Claims 2 – 21 are pending in the application.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
5. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,863,804 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are directed to identification of unknown media content using reference database. However, the patent application discloses additional features of “defining a set of coefficients from the set of audio frames at least in part by applying a transform function to the set of audio frames; generating an audio cue using the set of coefficients, the audio cue being a representation of the audio signal”.
Instant Application No. 19/219,092
Patent No. US 11,863,804 B2
2. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving an unknown cue from an unknown media segment, wherein the unknown media segment is associated with media being presented by a display device; identifying, from a multi-dimensional database, a matching cue corresponding to a known media segment based on a distance between the unknown cue and the matching cue; identifying an alternative media segment based on the known media segment; and transmitting a trigger signal to the display device, the trigger signal causing the display device to replace a subsequent media segment to be presented by the display device with the alternative media segment.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving an audio signal associated with an unknown media segment, the audio signal representing a portion of an audio channel of the unknown media segment; generating a set of audio frames from the audio signal, each audio frame representing a portion of the audio signal; defining a set of coefficients from the set of audio frames at least in part by applying a transform function to the set of audio frames; generating an audio cue using the set of coefficients, the audio cue being a representation of the audio signal; and transmitting the audio cue to a server configured to identify the unknown media segment based on a comparison of the audio cue to reference audio cues associated with known media segments, wherein identification of the unknown media segment causes a trigger to be embedded in a subsequent media segment, the trigger being configured to cause the subsequent media segment to be replaced with a different media segment.
9. A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium containing instructions which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including: receiving an unknown cue from an unknown media segment, wherein the unknown media segment is associated with media being presented by a display device; identifying, from a multi-dimensional database, a matching cue corresponding to a known media segment based on a distance between the unknown cue and the matching cue; identifying an alternative media segment based on the known media segment; and transmitting a trigger signal to the display device, the trigger signal causing the display device to replace a subsequent media segment to be presented by the display device with the alternative media segment.
8. A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium containing instructions which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including: receiving an audio signal associated with an unknown media segment, the audio signal representing a portion of an audio channel of the unknown media segment; generating a set of audio frames from the audio signal, each audio frame representing a portion of the audio signal; defining a set of coefficients from the set of audio frames at least in part by applying a transform function to the set of audio frames; generating an audio cue using the set of coefficients, the audio cue being a representation of the audio signal; and transmitting the audio cue to a server configured to identify the unknown media segment based on a comparison of the audio cue to reference audio cues associated with known media segments, wherein identification of the unknown media segment causes a trigger to be embedded in a subsequent media segment, the trigger being configured to cause the subsequent media segment to be replaced with a different media segment.
16. A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium containing instructions which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including: receiving an unknown cue from an unknown media segment, wherein the unknown media segment is associated with media being presented by a display device; identifying, from a multi-dimensional database, a matching cue corresponding to a known media segment based on a distance between the unknown cue and the matching cue; identifying an alternative media segment based on the known media segment; and transmitting a trigger signal to the display device, the trigger signal causing the display device to replace a subsequent media segment to be presented by the display device with the alternative media segment.
15. A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium containing instructions which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including: receiving an audio signal associated with an unknown media segment, the audio signal representing a portion of an audio channel of the unknown media segment; generating a set of audio frames from the audio signal, each audio frame representing a portion of the audio signal; defining a set of coefficients from the set of audio frames at least in part by applying a transform function to the set of audio frames; generating an audio cue using the set of coefficients, the audio cue being a representation of the audio signal; and transmitting the audio cue to a server configured to identify the unknown media segment based on a comparison of the audio cue to reference audio cues associated with known media segments, wherein identification of the unknown media segment causes a trigger to be embedded in a subsequent media segment, the trigger being configured to cause the subsequent media segment to be replaced with a different media segment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 11, 14 – 18, and 20 - 21 are directed are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: Claim 1 recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitation of
receiving an unknown cue from an unknown media segment, wherein the unknown media segment is associated with media being presented by a display device (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. observation)).
identifying, from a multi-dimensional database, a matching cue corresponding to a known media segment based on a distance between the unknown cue and the matching cue (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
identifying an alternative media segment based on the known media segment and transmitting a trigger signal to the display device (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
the trigger signal causing the display device to replace a subsequent media segment to be presented by the display device with the alternative media segment (i.e. judgement)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of
identifying, from a multi-dimensional database, a matching cue corresponding to a known media segment based on a distance between the unknown cue and the matching cue (the step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
identifying an alternative media segment based on the known media segment and transmitting a trigger signal to the display device (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
the trigger signal causing the display device to replace a subsequent media segment to be presented by the display device with the alternative media segment (the step is directed to combining information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of preparing data for presentation (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))))).
Although the additional element limits the identified judicial exceptions. The limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional element
identifying, from a multi-dimensional database, a matching cue corresponding to a known media segment based on a distance between the unknown cue and the matching cue (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
identifying an alternative media segment based on the known media segment and transmitting a trigger signal to the display device (this step is directed to organizing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of evaluating data).
the trigger signal causing the display device to replace a subsequent media segment to be presented by the display device with the alternative media segment (the step is directed evaluating and presenting information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of preparing data for presentation (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))))).
As explained above, the additional element are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to identifying, comparing, and presenting information are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of a computer to perform these limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the unknown cue is derived from an audio component of the unknown media segment (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the unknown cue is derived from an audio component of the unknown media segment (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the unknown cue is derived from a video component of the unknown media segment (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the unknown cue is derived from a video component of the unknown media segment (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the trigger signal is configured to cause the alternative media segment to be presented over the media being presented by a display device (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the trigger signal is configured to cause the alternative media segment to be presented over the media being presented by a display device (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites an apparatus, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein the trigger signal is configured to cause the alternative media segment to replace a portion of the unknown media segment (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein the trigger signal is configured to cause the alternative media segment to replace a portion of the unknown media segment (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9 – 11 and 14 - 15 recites a device, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
As per other analysis, claims 9 – 11 and 14 - 15 are device claim correspond to method claims 2 – 4 and 7 - 8 respectively, thus the rationale discussed above regarding claims 2 – 4 and 7 - 8 are applied to claims 9 – 11 and 14 - 15 respectively.
Claims 16 – 18 and 20 - 21 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
As per other analysis, claims 16 – 18 and 20 - 21 are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim correspond to method claims 2 – 4 and 7 - 8, thus, the rationale discussed above regarding claims 2 – 4 and 7 - 8 is applied to claims 16 – 18 and 20 - 21.
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.
7. Claims 2 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrempp et al (US 2003/0033321 A1), in view of Gordon (US 2017/0094351 A1).
As per claim 1, Schrempp et al (US 2003/0033321 A1) discloses,
A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving an unknown cue from an unknown media segment (para.[0070]; “identifying new media content …..receive an unidentified segment”).
wherein the unknown media segment is associated with media being presented by a display device (para.[0009]; “receiving broadcast signals and providing the signals to an analysis and lookup module …… identify the content of the received signal”).
identifying, from a multi-dimensional database, a matching cue corresponding to a known media segment based on a distance between the unknown cue and the matching cue (para.[0009]; “identify the content of the received signal by comparing its audio content against a database 108 of reference representations of known
works” and para.[0071]; “a wide variety of similarity measurement techniques may be used, such as those used to identify segments as disclosed above. For example, a threshold for similarity may comprise the vector distance between unidentified
segments”).
identifying an alternative media segment based on the known media segment (para.[0011]; “receive information such as the titles of identified songs from the one or more detection modules 102 through a network such as the Internet 109 and generate a playlist which may be stored on database”).
and transmitting a trigger signal to the display device (para.0054]; “trigger the transmission of representations. …….. such a trigger may comprise the initialization of a
connection to a network, or the activation of media playing software or hardware”).
Schrempp does not disclose the trigger signal causing the display device to replace a subsequent media segment to be presented by the display device with the alternative media segment.
However, Gordon (US 2017/0094351 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
the trigger signal causing the display device to replace a subsequent media segment to be presented by the display device with the alternative media segment (para.[0145]; “the fingerprint matching module 431 in the Content Replacement System 110 performs additional steps to identify the media content associated with the fingerprint received from the Media System”, and para.[0177]; “fingerprint is compared with a corresponding fingerprint for the identified sequence of media content. If the strong fingerprint matches, then the match is verified, and the replacement media content is sent to the Media System”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate replacement media content of the system of Gordon into identification of the unknown media content of the system of Schrempp to select additional content for replacing display media content, thereby enabling display of information related to the media content.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further Schrempp et al (US 2003/0033321 A1) discloses,
wherein the unknown cue is derived from an audio component of the unknown media segment (para.[0049]; “analyze a wide variety of content, including analog radio or video, digital streaming audio or video, VHS tape, audio cassette tape or any other media”).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further Schrempp et al (US 2003/0033321 A1) discloses,
wherein the unknown cue is derived from a video component of the unknown media segment (para.[0049]; “analyze a wide variety of content, including analog radio or video, digital streaming audio or video, VHS tape, audio cassette tape or any other media”).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further Schrempp et al (US 2003/0033321 A1) discloses,
wherein identifying the unknown media segment includes: detecting one or more media alterations associated with the unknown media segment (claim 12; “representation includes an indication of significant of changes in media signal content”).
and identifying the unknown media segment by comparing one or more coefficients of the unknown media segment to known coefficients associated with known media segments stored in a reference database (para.[0009]; “identify the content of the received signal by comparing its audio content against a database 108 of reference representations of known works” and para.[0036]; “the module 202 may use audio or video spectral or wavelet representation …… representation may comprise a bit calculated key using any of the techniques as are known in the art such as MDS hash and CRC”)
wherein the reference database is different from the multi-dimensional database (claim 39; “reference samples from a reference database”).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and further Schrempp et al (US 2003/0033321 A1) discloses,
wherein the one or more media alterations include an on-screen graphic (claim 12; “representation includes an indication of significant of changes in media signal content”).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further Gordon (US 2017/0094351 A1) discloses,
wherein the trigger signal is configured to cause the alternative media segment to be presented over the media being presented by a display device (para.[0145]; “the fingerprint matching module 431 in the Content Replacement System 110 performs additional steps to identify the media content associated with the fingerprint received from the Media System”, and para.[0177]; “fingerprint is compared with a corresponding fingerprint for the identified sequence of media content. If the strong fingerprint matches, then the match is verified, and the replacement media content is sent to the Media System”).
. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate replacement media content of the system of Gordon into identification of the unknown media content of the system of Schrempp to select additional content for replacing display media content, thereby enabling display of information related to the media content.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further Gordon (US 2017/0094351 A1) discloses,
wherein the trigger signal is configured to cause the alternative media segment to replace a portion of the unknown media segment (para.[0145]; “the fingerprint matching module 431 in the Content Replacement System 110 performs additional steps to identify the media content associated with the fingerprint received from the Media System”, and para.[0177]; “fingerprint is compared with a corresponding fingerprint for the identified sequence of media content. If the strong fingerprint matches, then the match is verified, and the replacement media content is sent to the Media System”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate replacement media content of the system of Gordon into identification of the unknown media content of the system of Schrempp to select additional content for replacing display media content, thereby enabling display of information related to the media content.
Claims 9 – 15 are device claims corresponding to method claims 2 – 8 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 2 – 8 respectively above.
Claims 16 – 19 and 20 - 21 are non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claims corresponding to method claims 2 – 5 and 7 - 8 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 2 – 5 and 7 - 8 respectively above.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
TITLE: Digital video recorder collaboration and similar media segment determination, US 2009/0028520 A1 authors: Jain et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUGUSTINE KUNLE OBISESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2020. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/AUGUSTINE K. OBISESAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2156
3/6/2025