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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 11-12, 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gupta et al. (US Pat. 11,336,930), herein referenced as Gupta.
Regarding claim 1, Gupta discloses “A system comprising: one or more memories; and at least one processor coupled to at least one of the one or more memories (Col. 9 line 52-Col. 10 line 15, Fig. 4) and configured to perform operations comprising:
receive a media stream comprising audio data and video data, wherein the media stream includes at least one ad break marker (Col. 1 line 64-Col. 2 line 6, Col. 3 line 55-Col. 4 line 50, Col. 7 line 52-Col. 8 line 15, Col. 4 line 65-Col. 5 line 5, Fig. 3, i.e. receiving a media stream with candidate locations in video content for inserting advertisement (ad) breaks. Markers are used as an indicator of the presence of a characteristic located in the video content);
obtain closed caption data corresponding to the media stream (Col. 1 lines 31-52, Col. 3 lines 33-45, Col. 10 line 64-Col. 11 line 18, Fig. 4, i.e., captions are analyzed, such that ad breaks are not put in the middle of a dialogue); and
determine a classification for the at least one ad break marker based on the closed caption data.” (Col. 4 lines 17-50, Col. 7 line 52-Col. 8 line 15, Fig. 3, i.e., figure 3 illustrates positive markers located in uncurated content [UC], and the resultant curated content [CC] showing suitable location for insertion of an ad break. The ad markers are aggregated to identify the suitable locations which are depicted using ovals. Video segments which are identified as including songs {m4} and stunt scenes {m5} are highlighted in the [UC] and are removed from consideration as candidate locations for ad break insertion (depicted by a trash can), regardless of how many positive markers are located within those video segments. The large ovals indicate the removed locations. The most suitable remaining candidate locations for ad break insertion are indicated in the [UC] by the thin (smaller) ovals).
Regarding claim 2, Gupta discloses “analyze the closed caption data to identify at least one of a dialog boundary and a sentence boundary within the media stream.” (Col. 1 lines 31-52, Col. 3 lines 33-45, Col. 10 line 64-Col. 11 line 18, Fig. 4, i.e., captions are analyzed, such that ad breaks are not put in the middle of a dialogue).
Regarding claim 7, Gupta discloses “detect a scene transition in the video data, wherein the classification of the ad break marker is further based on a temporal proximity to the scene transition.” (Col. 3 lines 33-36, Col. 4 lines 23-36, i.e., video characteristics such as scene changes are detected and a positive marker can be placed to indicate candidate locations for inserting an ad break).
Regarding claim 8, Gupta discloses “wherein to detect the scene transition the at least one processor is further configured to: identify a reduction in audio energy within the audio data.” (Col. 3 lines 31-32, Col. 6 lines 31-53, i.e., analyzing the audio of the video content to find a cluster of silent frames. A silent audio frame may be detected by examining the average volume level in the audio track and determining when a particular audio frame or audio segment is below a predetermined threshold value with respect to the average volume level. Thus, while a silent audio frame indication is a binary value (YES or NO), the audio volume indicates the actual volume level in decibels. These attributes may be used as part of the “confidence” determination).
Regarding claim 11, Gupta discloses “A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a media stream comprising audio data and video data, wherein the media stream includes at least one ad break marker (Col. 1 line 64-Col. 2 line 6, Col. 3 line 55-Col. 4 line 50, Col. 7 line 52-Col. 8 line 15, Col. 4 line 65-Col. 5 line 5, Fig. 3, i.e. receiving a media stream with candidate locations in video content for inserting advertisement (ad) breaks. Markers are used as an indicator of the presence of a characteristic located in the video content);
obtaining closed caption data corresponding to the media stream (Col. 1 lines 31-52, Col. 3 lines 33-45, Col. 10 line 64-Col. 11 line 18, Fig. 4, i.e., captions are analyzed, such that ad breaks are not put in the middle of a dialogue); and
determining a classification for the at least one ad break marker based on the closed caption data.” (Col. 4 lines 17-50, Col. 7 line 52-Col. 8 line 15, Fig. 3, i.e., figure 3 illustrates positive markers located in uncurated content [UC], and the resultant curated content [CC] showing suitable location for insertion of an ad break. The ad markers are aggregated to identify the suitable locations which are depicted using ovals. Video segments which are identified as including songs {m4} and stunt scenes {m5} are highlighted in the [UC] and are removed from consideration as candidate locations for ad break insertion (depicted by a trash can), regardless of how many positive markers are located within those video segments. The large ovals indicate the removed locations. The most suitable remaining candidate locations for ad break insertion are indicated in the [UC] by the thin (smaller) ovals).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, Gupta discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device (Col. 9 line 52-Col. 10 line 15, Fig. 4), cause the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising:
receive a media stream comprising audio data and video data, wherein the media stream includes at least one ad break marker (Col. 1 line 64-Col. 2 line 6, Col. 3 line 55-Col. 4 line 50, Col. 7 line 52-Col. 8 line 15, Col. 4 line 65-Col. 5 line 5, Fig. 3, i.e. receiving a media stream with candidate locations in video content for inserting advertisement (ad) breaks. Markers are used as an indicator of the presence of a characteristic located in the video content);
obtain closed caption data corresponding to the media stream (Col. 1 lines 31-52, Col. 3 lines 33-45, Col. 10 line 64-Col. 11 line 18, Fig. 4, i.e., captions are analyzed, such that ad breaks are not put in the middle of a dialogue); and
determine a classification for the at least one ad break marker based on the closed caption data.” (Col. 4 lines 17-50, Col. 7 line 52-Col. 8 line 15, Fig. 3, i.e., figure 3 illustrates positive markers located in uncurated content [UC], and the resultant curated content [CC] showing suitable location for insertion of an ad break. The ad markers are aggregated to identify the suitable locations which are depicted using ovals. Video segments which are identified as including songs {m4} and stunt scenes {m5} are highlighted in the [UC] and are removed from consideration as candidate locations for ad break insertion (depicted by a trash can), regardless of how many positive markers are located within those video segments. The large ovals indicate the removed locations. The most suitable remaining candidate locations for ad break insertion are indicated in the [UC] by the thin (smaller) ovals).
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.
Claims 6, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Kilar et al. (US Pub. 2012/0110616), herein referenced as Kilar.
Regarding claim 6, Gupta discloses at least one ad break marker based on the closed caption data (Col. 1 lines 31-52, Col. 3 lines 33-45, Col. 10 line 64-Col. 11 line 18, Fig. 4), however fails to explicitly disclose recommend an alternative position.
Kilar teaches the technique of providing recommending an alternative position for the at least one ad break marker ([0328]-[0329], Fig. 18D, i.e., the user to place the advertisement break in an undesirable temporal location of the media program. To prevent this undesirable result, one embodiment moves the selected temporal location of the advertising break to a third temporal location). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of recommending an alternative position for the at least one ad break marker as taught by Kilar, to improve the advertising break system of Gupta for the predictable result of moving the break to a more desirable temporal location ([0329]).
Therefore, the combination teaches “recommend an alternative position for the at least one ad break marker based on the closed caption data.”
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Hu et al. (US Pub. 2020/0336796), herein referenced as Hu.
Regarding claim 9, Gupta fails to disclose “wherein to obtain the closed caption data the at least one processor is further configured to: generate the closed caption data by processing the audio data using a speech recognition model.”
Hu teaches the technique of generating the closed caption data by processing the audio data using a speech recognition model ([0005]-[0006], [0048], [0050], i.e., speech recognition is performed on the first audio stream data to generate speech recognition text. Caption data is generated according to the speech recognition text, the caption data including caption text and time information corresponding to the caption text). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of generating the closed caption data by processing the audio data using a speech recognition model as taught by Hu, to improve the advertising break system of Gupta for the predictable result of providing instantaneous, cost-effective transcriptions.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is interpreted and thus rejected for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Sureshkumar et al. (US Pub. 2021/0117685), herein referenced as Sureshkumar.
Regarding claim 10, Gupta fails to disclose “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: select an evaluation policy based on a content type associated with the media stream, wherein the evaluation policy is used to determine the classification for the at least one ad break marker.”
Sureshkumar teaches the technique of selecting an evaluation policy based on a content type associated with the media stream, wherein the evaluation policy is used to determine the classification for the at least one ad break marker ([0042], [0052], [0083], [0093], i.e., the system may recommend a set of inter-segment availabilities (ISAs) for placing the advertisements using one or more policies. For example, the policies can include avoiding or using cliffhangers, avoiding scene fragmentations, and feel-good preceding segments). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of selecting an evaluation policy based on a content type associated with the media stream, wherein the evaluation policy is used to determine the classification for the at least one ad break marker as taught by Sureshkumar, to improve the advertising break system of Gupta for the predictable result of providing a more enjoyable viewing experience by not interrupting an important sequence or scene in the video.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 13-15 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 Alexander Q Huerta whose telephone number is (571)270-3582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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 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.
/ALEXANDER Q HUERTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights