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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,636,367. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are broader in every aspect than the patent claims and it’s, therefore, an obvious variant thereof.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 9, 11-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhumal at el. (hereinafter ‘Dhumal’, Pub. No. 2023/0269428) in view of Dhiman et al. (hereinafter ‘Dhiman’, Patent No. 11,368,751) in further view of Huang (Pub. No. 2019/0253744).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 19, Dhumal teaches a system (with corresponding method and a non-transitory computer readable medium) (100, Fig. 1; [0042]), comprising:
a storage module; and at least one processor each coupled to the storage module (Fig. 6; [0062]-[0068]) and configured to:
detect an audience within a vicinity of a media device based on identifying information received by the media device ([0046]; [0054]);
determine a category of the audience with a user identification system based on the identifying information ([0008]; [0045]; [0052]-[0054]);
identify a content tailoring rule for the audience based on the category (preferences are the rules to obtain/provide content; [0008]; [0043]; [0048]; [0053]; [0054], the child’s preferences have the highest priority over the other audience categories); and
modify the content based on the content tailoring rule and a category label on the content ([0043]; [0048]; [0053]; [0054]).
On the other hand, Dhumal does not explicitly teach
retrieve a content to be played by the media device, wherein the content comprises a plurality of frames and each frame of the plurality of frames comprises a category label; and
modify, while the content is being played by the media device, the plurality of frames of the content based on the content tailoring rule and a threshold percentage of frames having inappropriate category labels in a scene of the content.
However, in an analogous art, Dhiman teaches a system that dynamically updates content restrictions when a second user enters a room while a first user is watching a given content (Abstract; 700, Fig. 7; 900, Fig. 9; col. 17 line 15 to col. 19 line 4; col. 20 line 38 to col. 21 line 46). The system identifies users and learns the relationship between the plurality of users. With the aid of rules and content rating, the system automatically modifies the content being watched by a first user when a second user enters a room. Dhiman teaches that content rating can be attached as a metadata to each frame or the whole segments (col. 21 lines 9-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dhumal’s invention with Dhiman’s feature of modifying while the content is being played by the media device based on the content tailoring rule and the category label of each frame of the plurality of frames of the content for the benefit of protecting a minor from inappropriate content when walking into a room and provide granularity content rating for a faster detection of that same inappropriate content.
Additionally, Dhumal and Dhiman do not explicitly teach
Modify content based on the content tailoring rule and a threshold percentage of frames having inappropriate category.
However, in an analogous art, Huang teaches a system that analyzes live or streaming content. The system detects, marks and modifies inappropriate content that violates a given policy (Abstract; [0026]-[0031]; [0041]-[0046]). The system analyzes the content using machine learning algorithms when the content is being served. The system could determine that content is found to be inappropriate based on different criteria, including, i.e., having a threshold number of frames with inappropriate content, etc. ([0048]-[0050])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dhumal and Dhiman’s invention with Huang’s feature of modifying content if it violates policy and/or if the content has a threshold number of inappropriate frames for the benefit of being able to determine inappropriate content for different levels of tolerances.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Dhumal, Dhiman and Huang teach wherein the identifying information includes at least one image of the audience captured by an image sensor (Dhumal: [0046]; [0048]; [0051]).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Dhumal, Dhiman and Huang teach wherein to determine the category of the audience with the user identification system, the at least one processor is configured to determine the category of the audience based on the at least one image captured by the image sensor (Dhumal: [0046]; [0048]; [0051]).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Dhumal, Dhiman and Huang teach wherein the identifying information includes at least one utterance of the audience captured by an audio sensor in the media device (Dhumal: [0046]-[0048]; [0051]).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Dhumal, Dhiman and Huang teach wherein to determine the category of the audience with the user identification system, the at least one processor is configured to determine the category of the audience based on the at least one utterance (Dhumal: [0046]-[0048]; [0051]).
Regarding claim 8, Dhumal, Dhiman and Huang teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
change an image property of the plurality of frames based on the content tailoring rule of the audience (Dhumal: [0008]; [0043]; [0053]; [0054]); and
change a sound property of the plurality of frames based on the content tailoring rule of the audience (Dhumal: [0008]; [0046]).
Regarding claim 9, Dhumal, Dhiman and Huang teach wherein to retrieve the content to be played by the media device, the at least one processor is configured to retrieve one or more upcoming frames of the content being played by the media device (Huang: [0026]-[0028]; [0048], where the content is analyzed while being buffered in batches/sliding window).
Regarding claim 11, Dhumal, Dhiman and Huang teach wherein the audience comprises one or more users of the media device and the at least one processor is further configured to:
identify one or more user accounts for the one or more users based on the identifying information; and identify the plurality of categories based on user profiles in the one or more user accounts wherein each of the plurality of categories has a priority, and the category of the audience has a highest priority in the plurality of categories (Dhumal: [0045]; [0053]; [0054], the child’s preferences have the highest priority over the other audience categories).
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhumal at el. (hereinafter ‘Dhumal’, Pub. No. 2023/0269428) in view of Dhiman et al. (hereinafter ‘Dhiman’, Patent No. 11,368,751) in view of Huang (Pub. No. 2019/0253744) in further view of Aher et al. (hereinafter ‘Aher’, Pub. No. 2022/0177738).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Dhumal, Dhiman and Huang teach all the limitations of the claim it depends on. On the other hand, they do not explicitly teach wherein retrieving the content to be played by the media device comprises:
receiving an intent of the audience based on the at least one utterance, wherein the intent of the audience is determined by a natural language understanding system; and searching the content based on the intent of the audience and the content tailoring rule for the audience.
However, Aher teaches a system that receives a spoken command and analyzes the voice to recognize the age group of the user and the intent of the command (Abstract; [0002]; [0008]). The system uses natural language algorithm to detect the context of the command and based on the analysis, the system searches and obtains content tailored for the user ([0024]-[0026]; [0029]-[0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dhumal, Dhiman and Huang’s invention with Aher’s feature of using natural language to analyze the intent of the command utterance and tailor the content for the benefit of knowing the speech context of the requesting viewing and being able to further filter inappropriate content to children, for example.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhumal at el. (hereinafter ‘Dhumal’, Pub. No. 2023/0269428) in view of Dhiman et al. (hereinafter ‘Dhiman’, Patent No. 11,368,751) in view of Huang (Pub. No. 2019/0253744) in further view of Sugiura (EP 3896985).
Regarding claim 10, Dhumal, Dhiman and Huang teach all the limitations of the claim it depends on. On the other hand, they do not explicitly teach further configured to:
receive an instruction of continuing watching from the audience; identify a view history of the audience; and retrieve one or more upcoming frames of a prior content viewed by the audience based on the instruction and the view history.
However, in an analogous art, Sugiura teaches a system that allows spoken commands for selecting content. Upon receiving the request, the system accesses watching history of the requesting user and selects content, including content that the user has viewed before but not finished watching (Abstract. [0106]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dhumal, Dhiman and Huang’s invention with Sugimura’s feature of continuing watching content previously content for the benefit of allowing access to previously watched content as recorded on user’s history.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR S PARRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Mostly 10-6PM.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-2721915. 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.
/OMAR S PARRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights