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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 10 is 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 (claim 9).
Claim 12 is 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 (claim 11).
Regarding claim 13, it depends from allowable dependent claim 12. Therefore, claims 13 is also held allowable.
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, 17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent Application No. 19/195,664. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1, 17 and 20 capture a broader version of the claim elements already allowed in claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent Application No. 19/195,664.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the instance of content" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The feature should be amended to "the instance of supplemental content".
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 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua et al. (Pub No US 2007/0204310) in view of Badawiyeh et al. (Pub No US 2020/0204838). Hereinafter, referenced as Hua and Badawiyeh, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Hua discloses a method comprising:
storing a set of tags for a break in (e.g. advertisement insertion point) main content (Paragraph [0020] figure 1; extracted source video content metadata 124, e.g. genre attributes, motion information, objects in video, location of video, etc.), wherein a portion of the main content within a time period threshold of the break is analyzed to determine the set of tags (Paragraphs [0017] [0025] figure 1; analyze metadata 124 for source video segment adjacent to an advertisement insertion point);
receiving an indication of the break that is going to be experienced during playback of main content, wherein a client device is playing back the main content (Paragraphs [0003] [0037] [0038]; dynamically define a video advertisement clip insertion point based on a current playback position);
responsive to the indication, retrieving the set of tags (e.g. metadata 124) for the break (Paragraphs [0017] [0025] figure 1; source video segment adjacent to the defined insertion point);
providing information for the set of tags (e.g. metadata 124) to a supplemental content system to facilitate selection of an instance of supplemental content (e.g. contextually relevant ads) based on the set of tags (Paragraphs [0025] [0026] [0038] figures 1 and 4; select contextually relevant advertisements to insert at the insertion point of the adjacent source video segment based on a relevance measurements 126);
and providing information for the instance of supplemental content to the client device (Paragraph [0034] figure 1; audio/video player in receiver 106 may read a description file generated by the video ad platform 116 to identify ad insertions points and candidate ads for insertion) to insert the instance of supplemental content in the break during the playback of the main content (Paragraphs [0020] [0021]; inserting matched contextual advertisements).
However, it is noted that Hua is silent to explicitly disclose a set of tags from a taxonomy for a break in main content.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Badawiyeh discloses a set of tags from a taxonomy for a break in main content (Paragraphs [0084] [0087] [0090] figure 10; perform video analysis 410, e.g. scene and/or object recognition, and ad analysis 470 according to content taxonomy 410. Wherein ads are inserted during commercial breaks of the input video 405 based on determined context of the video content and the ads, e.g. if a beach scene is detected, insert a beach commercial; paragraph [0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hua by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Badawiyeh, for the predictable result of matching ads based on video hierarchical taxonomy and their commonalities to the ads, increasing the success rate of the targeted commercial (Badawiyeh – paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 2, Hua and Badawiyeh disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Hua discloses that sets of tags are determined based on automatically analyzing different portions of main content corresponding to multiple breaks (Paragraph [0020] figure 1; extracted source video content metadata 124, e.g. genre attributes, motion information, objects in video, location of video, etc.),
and the respective sets of tags are used to determine an instance of supplemental content for respective breaks (Paragraphs [0017] [0025] figure 1; analyze metadata 124 for source video segment adjacent to each advertisement insertion point).
Regarding claim 6, Hua and Badawiyeh disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Hua discloses that a tag in the set of tags detected in the portion of main content (Paragraphs [0018] [0020]; e.g. detected objects; e.g. cars, people, animals, etc.).
However, it is noted that Hua is silent to explicitly disclose that a tag in the set of tags is based on a brand detected in the portion of main content.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Badawiyeh discloses a tag in the set of tags is based on a brand detected in the portion of main content (Paragraphs [0090] [0095] [0099]; detected beer brand).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hua by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Badawiyeh, for the predictable result of matching ads based on video hierarchical taxonomy and their commonalities to the ads, increasing the success rate of the targeted commercial (Badawiyeh – paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 9, Hua and Badawiyeh disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Hua discloses that selecting the instance of supplemental content comprises: selecting the instance of supplemental content based on receiving the instance of supplemental content from a third party server (e.g. advertiser), wherein an entity (e.g. administrator) associated the instance of content with one of the set of tags (Paragraphs [0024] [0038] figure 4; advertiser provides ads, wherein an administrator may embed metadata, e.g. XML tags, describing the ads).
Regarding claim 11, Hua and Badawiyeh disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Hua discloses that selecting the instance of supplemental content (e.g. ads) comprises: receiving a request from a party based on the set of tags (Paragraphs [0024] [0038] figure 4; advertiser provides ads to be targeted, wherein an administrator may embed metadata, e.g. XML tags, describing the ads).
Regarding claim 14, Hua and Badawiyeh disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Hua discloses that selecting the instance of supplemental content comprises: selecting the instance of supplemental content based on a condition (e.g. contextual relevance) for the instance of supplemental content matching the set of tags (Paragraphs [0025] [0026] [0038] figures 1 and 4; select contextually relevant advertisements to insert at the insertion point of the adjacent source video segment based on a relevance measurements 126).
Regarding claim 15, Hua and Badawiyeh disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Hua discloses that selecting the instance of supplemental content comprises: sending a request for items to a controller (Figure 15), wherein the controller determines instances of supplemental content that match the set of tags based on conditions (e.g. contextual relevance) specified by the items (Paragraphs [0025] [0026] [0038] figures 1 and 4; select contextually relevant advertisements to insert at the insertion point of the adjacent source video segment based on a relevance measurements 126).
Regarding claim 17, Hua and Badawiyeh disclose all the limitations of claim 17; therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Hua and Badawiyeh disclose all the limitations of claim 19; therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, Hua and Badawiyeh disclose all the limitations of claim 20; therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 1.
Claims 3-5, 7, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua and Badawiyeh further in view of Ghavami et al. (Pub No US 2022/0038776). Hereinafter, referenced as Ghavami.
Regarding claim 3, Hua and Badawiyeh disclose the method of claim 1; moreover, Badawiyeh discloses inputting the portion of the main content into a machine learning process to determine the set of tags that are associated with the portion of main content (Paragraph [0081] figure 10; using machine learning algorithms to extract and generate deep metadata 420 about the video portion 405).
However, it is noted that Hua and Badawiyeh are silent to explicitly disclose a machine learning process to predict the set of tags.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Ghavami discloses a machine learning process to predict the set of tags (Paragraphs [0121]-[0124]; presenting targeted advertisement during commercial breaks. Wherein video content presentation and ads are matched based on hierarchical taxonomy and their commonalities, e.g. family video content matches with a minivan commercial, adventure video content matches with a road SUV commercial, etc.; paragraphs [0036] [0040] figure 6. Wherein predictive analysis may be implemented to establish context; paragraphs [0080] [0145] figure 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hua and Badawiyeh by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Ghavami, for the predictable result of automating metadata generation, improving the content recommendation accuracy that is relevant to the context of the analyzed video.
Regarding claim 4, Hua, Badawiyeh and Ghavami disclose the method of claim 3; however, it is noted that Hua and Badawiyeh are silent to explicitly disclose that the machine learning process outputs a confidence score that indicates a confidence that the respective tag is detected in the portion of main content.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Ghavami discloses that the machine learning process outputs a confidence score that indicates a confidence that the respective tag is detected in the portion of main content (Paragraphs [0029] [0033] [0058] figures 4 and 5; identification of features, e.g. people, places, logos, etc., in an analyzed video may be filtered based on confidence levels meeting a specific threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hua and Badawiyeh by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Ghavami, for the predictable result of automating metadata generation, improving the content recommendation accuracy that is relevant to the context of the analyzed video.
Regarding claim 5, Hua, Badawiyeh and Ghavami disclose the method of claim 3; however, it is noted that Hua and Badawiyeh are silent to explicitly disclose that the machine learning process outputs a relevance score that indicates a relevance that the respective tag is relevant to the portion of main content.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Ghavami discloses that the machine learning process outputs a relevance score that indicates a relevance that the respective tag is relevant to the portion of main content (Paragraphs [0073] [0074] [0145]; highest relevance weighted score).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hua and Badawiyeh by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Ghavami, for the predictable result of automating metadata generation, improving the content recommendation accuracy that is relevant to the context of the analyzed video.
Regarding claim 7, Hua and Badawiyeh disclose the method of claim 1; however, it is noted that Hua and Badawiyeh are silent to explicitly disclose assigning an affinity to tags in the set of tags based on a positive affinity or negative affinity to a category in the taxonomy, wherein the affinity is used to select the instance of supplemental content.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Ghavami discloses assigning an affinity to tags in the set of tags based on a positive affinity or negative affinity to a category in the taxonomy, wherein the affinity is used to select the instance of supplemental content (Paragraphs [0040] [0061] figure 4; classification of content based on taxonomy and commonality with contextual analysis, including emotional effect, e .g. positive, neutral, negative, etc., that the viewer may feel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hua and Badawiyeh by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Ghavami, for the predictable result of automating metadata generation, improving the content recommendation accuracy that is relevant to the context of the analyzed video.
Regarding claim 16, Hua and Badawiyeh disclose the method of claim 15; however, it is noted that Hua and Badawiyeh are silent to explicitly disclose that the conditions include a confidence condition, a usage condition, or a combination of the confidence condition and the usage condition.
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Ghavami discloses the conditions include a confidence condition, a usage condition, or a combination of the confidence condition and the usage condition (Paragraphs [0029] [0033] [0058] figures 4 and 5; identification of features, e.g. people, places, logos, etc., in an analyzed video may be filtered based on confidence levels meeting a specific threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hua and Badawiyeh by specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught by Ghavami, for the predictable result of automating metadata generation, improving the content recommendation accuracy that is relevant to the context of the analyzed video.
Regarding claim 18, Hua, Badawiyeh and Ghavami disclose all the limitations of claim 18; therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons stated in claim 3.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Glick et al (Pub No US 2013/0238419): select targeted and contextual advertising that is relevant to the primary content based on genome data, e.g. taxonomy, of the primary content (per-segment) and the secondary content, e.g. advertisement; Paragraphs [0007] [0008] [0026] [0037] figures 1A-B.
Maalej (Pub No US 2025/0324109): indexed semantic tags associated with each audio track to identify audio ads that closely align with the context and themes of the primary video content; Paragraphs [0074].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNIOR O MENDOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm EST..
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
JUNIOR O. MENDOZA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/JUNIOR O MENDOZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights