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
This action is issued in response to Applicants amendment filed June 26, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. No claim is added and none cancelled.
Applicant's arguments filed June 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,482. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the distinctions are obvious variations of each other and the claims of the instant application are fully encompassed within claims 1-3 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,482.
Please see graph below for mapping:
19/247,852 Patent No. 12,373,482
1. A method comprising:
adding, to a data structure for a media content item, one or more words, from a video stream, that reference the media content item; and
causing, based on a search request matching the one or more words of the data structure, output of the media content item.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a video stream comprising one or more words;
adding, to media content metadata associated with a media content item and based on a determination that the one or more words of the video stream reference the media content item:
a first data field indicating the one or more words of the video stream, and
a second data field indicating the media content item;
receiving, from a user, a search request; and
based on the search request matching the one or more words and further based on the first data field and the second data field of the media content metadata, causing playback of the media content item.
As seen from the graph above; Independent Claim 1 is a method claim whose limitations are fully encompassed within the method of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,482. Dependent claim 6 is fully encompassed within dependent claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,482. Dependent claim 8 is fully encompassed within dependent claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,482. Dependent claim 9 is fully encompassed within dependent claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,482.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,636,146. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the distinctions are obvious variations of each other and the claims of the instant application are fully encompassed within claims 1, 2, 4, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,636,146.
Independent Claim 1 is a method claim whose limitations are fully encompassed within the method of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,636,146. Dependent claim 2 is fully encompassed within Independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,636,146. Dependent claim 4 is fully encompassed within dependent claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,636,146. Dependent claim 8 is fully encompassed within dependent claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,636,146. Dependent claim 9 is fully encompassed within dependent claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,636,146.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,360. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the distinctions are obvious variations of each other and the claims of the instant application are fully encompassed within claims 1-4, 7, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,360.
Independent Claim 1 is a method claim whose limitations are fully encompassed within the method of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,360. Dependent claim 2 is fully encompassed within dependent claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,360. Dependent claim 3 is fully encompassed within dependent claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,360. Dependent claim 4 is fully encompassed within dependent claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,360. Dependent claim 5 is fully encompassed within dependent claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,360. Dependent claim 6 is fully encompassed within Independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,360. Dependent claim 8 is fully encompassed within dependent claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,360. Dependent claim 9 is fully encompassed within dependent claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,360.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract Idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 are method claims and directed to the process category of patentable subject matter.
Claims 11-15 are method claims and directed to the process category of patentable subject matter.
Claims 16-20 are method claims and directed to the process category of patentable subject matter.
Although claims 1-20 fall under at least one of the four statutory categories, it should be determined whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
Independent Claim 1 is drawn to (struck-through limitations have been identified as additional elements and will be discussed in later sections):
[a] adding,
[b] causing, based on a search request matching the one or more words of the data structure, output of the media content item.
Independent Claims 11 and 16 are drawn to (struck-through limitations have been identified as additional elements and will be discussed in later sections):
[a] detecting,
[b] comparing words in the video segment of the video stream to a listing of media content items;
[c] determining, based on finding a match between at least one word from the video segment and an entry in the listing, a media content item identified by the entry in the listing; and
[d] causing, based on a search request matching one or more words from the video segment, output of the media content item.
The claims fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas; since the claims are simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind.
With regard to limitation [a] of claim 1, a human may mentally view and collect word(s) that reference a media item from a video. This claim limitation has been identified as a recitation of a mental process.
With regard to limitation [b] of claim 1, a human may write with pen/paper (or speak) the media item. This claim limitation has been identified as a recitation of a mental process.
With regard to limitation [a] of claims 11/16, a human may mentally determine a video segment of a video. This claim limitation has been identified as a recitation of a mental process.
With regard to limitation [b] of claims 11/16, a human may mentally compare words to a listing of media items. This claim limitation has been identified as a recitation of a mental process.
With regard to limitation [c] of claims 11/16, a human may mentally determine a media item after matching a word to a listing entry. This claim limitation has been identified as a recitation of a mental process.
With regard to limitation [d] of claims 11/16, a human may write with pen/paper (or speak) the media item. This claim limitation has been identified as a recitation of a mental process.
The examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. The limitations of “adding”, “detecting”, “comparing”, “determining”, and “outputting”; fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas because this recites a mentally performable process of adding word(s) to a data structure for a media item and finding the media item based on a search matching one of the words. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, “methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all”. Specifically, the limitations as discussed above, as claimed, is a process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind, or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., processor, memory, device, etc.) because a user can mentally, or with pen and paper, perform the steps as discussed above. See Digitech (organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations), Electric Power Group (collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) includes additional elements which fall within the mental processing of information. In particular, the limitation of an audio volume change in a video stream; have been identified as recitations of generic computing functions. In particular, the claims only recite additional elements (i.e., processor, memory, device, etc.) that are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a generic computer or as a generic processor performing a generic computer function), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See 2106.05(d) (II). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not appear to integrate the mental process into a practical application and is thus directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or are merely drawn to insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component or insignificant extra-solution is not significantly more than the judicial exception.
The dependent claims, 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20, depend on a rejected parent claim and do not cure its deficiencies. Similar to the above discussion, each of the dependent claims are drawn to an abstract idea within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims are drawn to subject matter that covers performance of the claimed limitations in the mind, or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components as discussed above. The claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claims only recite additional elements that is/are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., as a generic computer or as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or are merely drawn to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim elements considered individually or in combination do not result in a new or improved method for path determination.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferrone (U.S. Patent Application No. 2009/0235297).
Regarding Claim 1, Ferrone discloses a method comprising:
adding, to a data structure for a media content item, one or more words, from a video stream, that reference the media content item (Figs.10&11; par [0090-0093], Ferrone – attributes (i.e., keywords) are assigned to a media content program, such as the keywords ‘comedy’ and ‘funny’ for the television episode of “The Office”; wherein the attributes are stored within databases or other data structures… Figs.10 and 11 illustrate the storing and association of keywords with media content… par [0096-0097], [0119-0121], Ferrone – the keywords extracted from the communications are analyzed to identify relevant advertising; for example, if a particular keyword car brand is frequently mentioned then an advertisement for the brand may be selected and displayed… par [0044], Ferrone – Advertisement can provide further information about media content, provide information about a product, or provide media content relating to the advertisement); and
causing, based on a search request matching the one or more words of the data structure, output of the media content item (par [0092-0093], Ferrone - The keywords or attributes assigned to a media content can be subsequently used to locate particular portions of the media content. For example, the assigned keywords can be used to find a media content or a particular portion thereof in response to a search function. A user may access a media guidance application search function and request a listing of comedies. The databases of FIG. 10 and/or FIG. 11 may be consulted to identify "The Office," XYZ Program, and 123 Program as being associated with comedies… par [0101], [0121], [0125], Ferrone).
Regarding Claim 2, Ferrone discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the video stream comprises a broadcast media stream (par [0037], Ferrone – television programing for traditional broadcasting or Internet content for streaming media).
Regarding Claim 6, Ferrone discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more words that are associated with the media content item comprise at least one of: a name of the media content item; a channel identifier associated with the media content item; an on-demand provider associated with the media content item; or a word or phrase included in the media content item (par [0088], [0091-0093], Ferrone).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5, 7-8, 10, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrone (U.S. Patent Application No. 2009/0235297) in view of Luff (U.S. Patent Application No. 2011/0066437).
Regarding Claim 3, Ferrone teaches all of the claimed subject matter as stated above. However, Ferrone is not as detailed with respect to adding, to the data structure, one or more user utterances associated with the media content item.
On the other hand, Luff discloses adding, to the data structure, one or more user utterances associated with the media content item (par [0033], Luff – popularity of a media content is measured by, for example, measuring a frequency occurrence throughout a defined set of media presentations (e.g., the number of times a celebrity's name was uttered during a previous month on one or more television station(s); wherein the keywords then recorded in a code book).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Luff’s teachings into the Ferrone system. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine in order to monitor media exposure; thus, ensuring a more efficient and adequate search for the indicated media content.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Ferrone in view of Luff, disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the adding the one or more words further comprises: adding, to the data structure, a homophone of the one or more words that reference the media content item (par [0043], Luff - the encoder is configured to either (1) generate phonetic notations for the keywords and to assign or retrieve the proxy codes associated therewith, and/or (2) to assign or retrieve the proxy codes directly associated with the keywords themselves (e.g., one of a plurality of keywords selected based on a popularity measurement). To retrieve the proxy codes associated with the phonetic notations, the encoder references the phonetic code book stored at the central facility. In the illustrated example, the phonetic code book maps phonemes to unique proxy codes).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Ferrone in view of Luff, disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the one or more words that reference the media content item, based on at least one of: an audio signal, of the video stream, converted into a text transcript; analyzing closed caption information included in the video stream (par [0021], Luff - to generate the content-descriptive information, an apparatus is configured to select certain words or phrases from the media content to be encoded. The words can be manually input/identified and/or automatically identified using, for example, closed captioning information, a speech-to-text converter); or an on-screen graphic included in the video stream.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Ferrone in view of Luff, disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the adding the one or more words comprises: determining, based on comparing an audio signal of the video stream to a database storing words or sounds commonly used by a media provider, the one or more words that reference the media content item (par [0057], Luff - when the output of any of the closed caption text decoder 304, the speech-to-text converter 306, the metadata detector 308, and/or the media features detector 310 contains one of the keywords in the list (as detected by a comparator, coded instructions, and/or a logic circuit in the word selector 312), the word selector 312 generates an output indicating that a content-aware watermark should be generated… par [0087], Luff - the word selector may be configured to select words or phrases that might be of interest to a user searching for media content in; wherein the keywords may be selected by, for example, comparing words detected in the closed caption text or audio track portion to words of interest identified in a list in, for example, the reference database).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Ferrone in view of Luff, disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the search request comprises a user voice input (par [0151], Deng (U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0083883, incorporated by reference into the Luff reference) – user input device may be a voice recognition system).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Ferrone in view of Luff, disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting, based on one of an audio volume change or a scene change in the video stream, a video segment of the video stream; wherein the one or more words that reference the media content item are from the video segment of the video stream (par [0055], [0065], Luff – media features detector is configured to detect particular characteristics or features in media content (i.e., media changes, etc.) and to generate metadata descriptive of those characteristics or features… to receive audio and/or video media, the example content-aware watermark decoder is provided with the media interface. The content-aware watermarks detected by the watermark detector may be media feature based (e.g., identifying blank frames, scene changes, etc.) and/or keyword based (e.g., representing content of the media program)… also see par [0020-0021], Ramaswamy (U.S. Patent Application No. 2009/0256972, incorporated by reference into the Luff reference) – for scene changes).
Regarding Claim 16, Ferrone discloses a method comprising:
detecting a video segment of the video stream (par [0092-0093], Ferrone - the keywords or attributes may be embedded in each frame of a media content so that the video is identifiable to the accuracy of a frame. Similarly if the media content is contained in a stream of packets, the keywords described above may be placed into informational packets that are located within the video stream);
comparing words in the video segment of the video stream to a listing of media content items (par [0091-0093], [0097-0098], Ferrone – lists all of media contents that have been associated with the corresponding keywords; wherein the keywords or attributes assigned to a media content can be subsequently used to locate particular portions of the media content. For example, the assigned keywords can be used to find a media content or a particular portion thereof in response to a search function);
determining, based on finding a match between at least one word from the video segment and an entry in the listing, a media content item identified by the entry in the listing (par [0091-0093], [0097-0098], Ferrone); and
causing, based on a search request matching one or more words from the video segment, output of the media content item (par [0092-0093], Ferrone – the assigned keywords can be used to find a media content or a particular portion thereof in response to a search function).
While Ferrone teaches all of the claimed subject matter as stated above. However, Ferrone is not as detailed with respect to detecting a video segment based on a scene change in a video stream.
On the other hand, Luff teaches detecting a video segment based on a scene change in a video stream (par [0055], [0065], Luff – media features detector is configured to detect particular characteristics or features in media content (i.e., media changes, etc.) and to generate metadata descriptive of those characteristics or features… to receive audio and/or video media, the example content-aware watermark decoder is provided with the media interface. The content-aware watermarks detected by the watermark detector may be media feature based (e.g., identifying blank frames, scene changes, etc.) and/or keyword based (e.g., representing content of the media program)… also see par [0020-0021], Ramaswamy (U.S. Patent Application No. 2009/0256972, incorporated by reference into the Luff reference) – for scene changes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Luff’s teachings into the Ferrone system. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine in order to monitor media exposure; thus, ensuring a more efficient and adequate search for the indicated media content.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Ferrone in view of Luff, disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the causing output of the media content item comprises causing output of the media content item further based on one or more user utterances associated with the media content item (par [0033], Luff – popularity of a media content is measured by, for example, measuring a frequency occurrence throughout a defined set of media presentations (e.g., the number of times a celebrity's name was uttered during a previous month on one or more television station(s); wherein the keywords then recorded in a code book).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Ferrone in view of Luff, disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the at least one word comprises at least one of: a name of the media content item; a channel identifier associated with the media content item; an on-demand provider associated with the media content item; or a word or phrase included in the media content item (par [0088], [0091-0093], Ferrone).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Ferrone in view of Luff, disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the determining the media content item comprises: determining the media content item further based on a comparison of an audio signal of the video segment to a database storing words or sounds commonly used by a media provider (par [0057], Luff - when the output of any of the closed caption text decoder 304, the speech-to-text converter 306, the metadata detector 308, and/or the media features detector 310 contains one of the keywords in the list (as detected by a comparator, coded instructions, and/or a logic circuit in the word selector 312), the word selector 312 generates an output indicating that a content-aware watermark should be generated… par [0087], Luff - the word selector may be configured to select words or phrases that might be of interest to a user searching for media content in; wherein the keywords may be selected by, for example, comparing words detected in the closed caption text or audio track portion to words of interest identified in a list in, for example, the reference database).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Ferrone in view of Luff, disclose the method of claim 11, further comprising: adding, to a data structure for the media content item, the one or more words from the video segment (par [0090-0093], Ferrone – after the attributes are identified, the chat server or other computer may assign them to particular portions of the displayed media content based on the run-time of the media content… Figs.10 & 11 are embodied in databases, tables, or any other data structures; wherein the keywords or attributes may be embedded in each frame of a media content so that the video is identifiable to the accuracy of a frame. Similarly if the media content is contained in a stream of packets, the keywords described above may be placed into informational packets that are located within the video stream).
Claim(s) 9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrone (U.S. Patent Application No. 2009/0235297) in view of King (U.S. Patent Application No. 2011/0043652).
Regarding Claim 9, Ferrone discloses all of the claimed subject matter as stated above. However, Ferrone is not as detailed with respect to the data structure comprises: at least one n-gram based on at least two of the one or more words that reference the media content item.
On the other hand, King discloses the data structure comprises: at least one n-gram based on at least two of the one or more words that reference the media content item (par [0244], [0257], [0279], King - the system may use less-detailed aspects of the text, such as relative word widths. In some examples, the system may leverage unique n-grams by determining whether unknown or infrequent n-grams are noise, or high-signal information (misspellings, email addresses, URLs, etc.) based on, for example, certainty of characters deviating from common n-grams, length of deviation, matching regular expressions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate King’s teachings into the Ferrone system. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine in order to better capture and present information that is not necessarily presented as text; thus providing a useful manner to search and display the information.
Regarding Claim 11, Ferrone discloses a method comprising:
detecting a video segment of the video stream (par [0092-0093], Ferrone - the keywords or attributes may be embedded in each frame of a media content so that the video is identifiable to the accuracy of a frame. Similarly if the media content is contained in a stream of packets, the keywords described above may be placed into informational packets that are located within the video stream);
comparing words in the video segment of the video stream to a listing of media content items (par [0091-0093], [0097-0098], Ferrone – lists all of media contents that have been associated with the corresponding keywords; wherein the keywords or attributes assigned to a media content can be subsequently used to locate particular portions of the media content. For example, the assigned keywords can be used to find a media content or a particular portion thereof in response to a search function);
determining, based on finding a match between at least one word from the video segment and an entry in the listing, a media content item identified by the entry in the listing (par [0091-0093], [0097-0098], Ferrone); and
causing, based on a search request matching one or more words from the video segment, output of the media content item (par [0092-0093], Ferrone – the assigned keywords can be used to find a media content or a particular portion thereof in response to a search function).
While Ferrone teaches all of the claimed subject matter as stated above. However, Ferrone is not as detailed with respect to an audio volume change in a video stream.
On the other hand, King teaches an audio volume change in a video stream (par [0637], [0668], King).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate King’s teachings into the Ferrone system. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine in order to better capture and present information that is not necessarily presented as text; thus providing a useful manner to search and display the information.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Ferrone in view of King, disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the causing output of the media content item comprises causing output of the media content item further based on one or more user utterances associated with the media content item (par [0643-0645], King… also see par [0636-0639], King).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Ferrone in view of King, disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the at least one word comprises at least one of: a name of the media content item; a channel identifier associated with the media content item; an on-demand provider associated with the media content item; or a word or phrase included in the media content item (par [0088], [0091-0093], Ferrone).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Ferrone in view of King, disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the determining the media content item comprises: determining the media content item further based on a comparison of an audio signal of the video segment to a database storing words or sounds commonly used by a media provider (par [0668], [0639], King).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Ferrone in view of King, disclose the method of claim 11, further comprising: adding, to a data structure for the media content item, the one or more words from the video segment (par [0090-0093], Ferrone – after the attributes are identified, the chat server or other computer may assign them to particular portions of the displayed media content based on the run-time of the media content… Figs.10 & 11 are embodied in databases, tables, or any other data structures; wherein the keywords or attributes may be embedded in each frame of a media content so that the video is identifiable to the accuracy of a frame. Similarly if the media content is contained in a stream of packets, the keywords described above may be placed into informational packets that are located within the video stream).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, with respect to the 101 rejection of an abstract idea, the independent claims are integrated into a practical application by enabling improvement in the functioning of a media search and playback system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims features are directed at adding words that reference a media item to a data structure and outputting the media item, based on a search. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed by a human mind and/or pen and paper (i.e., collecting, classifying, and displaying data). The claimed limitations are the most basic functions of a computer, and there is nothing that improves upon the computing technology or another technology. Applicant’s argument amounts to no more than a speculative/conclusory allegation that the pending claims provide “an improvement” to support an invention under 101. In addition, it appears that Applicant’s alleged improvement may be no more than a desired intended result that is not required to be performed or achieved based on the claim language currently recited in each of the pending claims. Thus, none of Applicants pending claims are required to improve any computer related technology or to improve upon the functioning of the computer itself. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments constitute no more than a general allegation that the pending claims support a patentable invention under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant argues, Ferrone fails to disclose adding “one or more words, from a video stream” to a data structure, because Ferrone’s keywords are not from a video stream.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ferrone teaches attributes (i.e., keywords) are assigned to a media content program, such as the keywords ‘comedy’ and ‘funny’ for the television episode of “The Office”; wherein the attributes are stored within databases or other data structures… Figs.10 and 11 illustrate the storing and association of keywords with media content (see par [0090-0093]). Ferrone further teaches the user may then create communications or messages while viewing the media content. The communications may consist of a video (see par [0104]); wherein the invention assigns attributes to media content derived from actual viewer communications; the attributes have a strong, real-world correlation with the media content (see par [0098]). Next, Ferrone teaches the keywords extracted from the communications are analyzed to identify relevant advertising; for example, if a particular keyword car brand is frequently mentioned then an advertisement for the brand may be selected and displayed (see par [0096-0097], [0119-0121]); as well as the communications are analyzed to identify attributes of the media content. For example, two or more communications may be analyzed to locate repeated words or phrases. These repeated words or phrases are then assigned as attributes of the media content (see par [0120]). Subsequently, the advertisement discussed can provide further information about media content, provide information about a product, or provide media content relating to the advertisement (see par [0044]). While the Ferrone reference discusses communications about the media content; it is clear that an example of the communication can be a video and that video can contain content that is directly included within the video stream. Thus, the communication being produced may include or use keywords that are directly found within the video stream and thus meet the claim language of adding, one or more words, from a video stream; since in fact those words did in fact come from/originate from the video stream. As a result, the examiner believes to above argued feature is in fact taught.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHELCIE L DAYE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3891. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-4:00pm. 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, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571-272-4080. 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).
Chelcie Daye
Patent Examiner
Technology Center 2100
July 28, 2026
/CHELCIE L DAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights