DETAILED ACTION
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 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haberman et al., US 8,006,261.
2 and 12. Haberman teaches a method comprising:
maintaining an ad data structure for a product, the ad data structure comprising:
(a) a plurality of video tracks associated with the product [media segments 54 including video tracks, Figs. 2, 3, 6, 8, col. 7, 6-27; col. 8, 25-37; col. 9, 3-33; col. 14, 22-33];
(b) a plurality of audio tracks associated with the product [media segments 54 including audio tracks, Figs. 2, 3, 6, 8, col. 7, 6-27; col. 8, 25-37; col. 9, 3-33; col. 14, 22-33];
accessing a user profile, wherein the user profile comprises preference data of a user [Figs. 1-4, col. 6, 52-64];
generating for display on at least one device associated with the user, a first ad for the product, wherein the first ad is generated by selecting a first combination of a video track from the plurality of video tracks and an audio track from the plurality of audio tracks of the ad data structure based at least in part on the user profile and generating for display on the at least one device associated with the user, a second ad for the product, wherein the second ad is generated by selecting a second combination of a video track from the plurality of video tracks and an audio track from the plurality of audio tracks of the ad data structure based at least in part on the user profile, wherein the second combination is different from the first combination [first and second personalized messages are generated as a combination of video and audio tracks, each combination different for the particular user based on their profile, Figs. 2-4, 6, 8, col. 7, 36-49; col. 8, 25-37, 50-64; col. 9, 13-39; col. 14, 38-50; col. 15, 40-58].
3 and 13. Haberman teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the ad data structure further comprises any one of:
(a) a plurality of dialogue tracks associated the product [e.g. col. 9, 25-33];
(b) a plurality of voiceover tracks associated with the product;
(c) a plurality of tones;
(d) a plurality of pitches.
4 and 14. Haberman teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the ad data structure is a matrix [template 56 is a structure to insert segment data, i.e. a matrix, Fig. 3, 4, 6, col. 7, 13-21; col. 4, 36-44; col. 8, 1-12].
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 5-11 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberman as cited above in view of Dmitriev et al., US 2008/0092159 and further in view of Panje, US 2008/0307481.
5 and 15 (from 2). Haberman teaches control circuitry [Figs. 1, 9, 10, col. 16] for selecting audio and video tracks based on user preferences [Figs. 2-4, 6, 8, col. 7, 36-49; col. 8, 25-37, 50-64; col. 9, 13-39; col. 14, 38-50; col. 15, 40-58], but is silent on detecting skipping.
Dmitriev teaches a system including determining that the user skipped the first ad [Figs. 1, 6, paras. 10, 11, 23, 27-29, 75, 104, 135, 136];
updating the preference data corresponding to the plurality of video tracks and the plurality of audio tracks [Fig. 6, paras. 10, 11, 23, 27, 29, 68, 75, 104, 135, 136].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate Dmitriev, since skipping is an accurate proxy for interest and therefore can improve targeting via user profile. Allowing skipping improves the user experience while providing data that can be used to build a quality profile.
The above references are silent on modifying the ad based on updated profile data.
Panje teaches based at least in part on the updated preference data of the user profile, modifying the first ad to generate for display the second combination for the second ad for the product [first ad is modified into a different ad, based on profile which may include viewing habits, Figs. 3-5, paras. 17-19, 22-25, 31, 32, 35]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references, incorporating Panje's technique of selectively modifying ads to better appeal to specific viewers with different interests or in different locations, while still delivering the basic ad message [see Panje, paras. 2, 18, 21, 24].
6 and 16. Dmitriev teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the updating the preference data corresponding to the plurality of video tracks and the plurality of audio tracks comprises: based on the determining that the user skipped the first ad, updating the preference data corresponding to the plurality of video tracks and the plurality of audio tracks to reflect that the user does not prefer the first combination of the first ad [skipping, which action is stored in preferences, is interpreted as disapproval, paras. 23, 27-29, 40-59].
7 and 17. Dmitriev teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the determining that the user skipped the first ad comprises: determining that the user viewed a percent of the first ad; and determining that the percent is below a predetermined threshold percent viewed [e.g. a skip is counted if less than 5 seconds was viewed, para. 74].
8 and 18. Dmitriev teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising:
determining that the user viewed a first percent of the first ad and a second percent of the second ad [e.g. user skips first ad (viewed ~0%) but watches second ad (e.g. %100), Figs. 1, 6, paras. 10, 11, 23, 27-29, 74, 75, 104, 135, 136];
calculating that the first percent is less than the second percent; determining that the user prefers the second ad to the first ad [skipping (as compared to watching) which action is stored in preferences, is interpreted as disapproval, paras. 23, 27-29, 40-59]; and
based on the determining that the user prefers the second ad to the first ad, updating the preference data corresponding to the plurality of video tracks and the plurality of audio tracks to reflect that the user prefers the second combination of the second ad [Fig. 6, paras. 10, 11, 23, 27, 29, 68, 75, 104, 135, 136].
9 and 19. Dmitriev teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the first ad and the second ad are generated for display at different times during the same media asset [e.g. program shown in Fig. 3 has multiple personalized ads, Fig. 3, paras. 76-85].
10 and 20. Dmitriev teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the preference data of the user comprises data for any one of the plurality of video tracks associated with the product, the plurality of audio tracks associated with the product [e.g. sound/soft music, Figs. 2C, 5, paras. 70, 120], a plurality of dialogue tracks associated the product, a plurality of voiceover tracks associated with the product, a plurality of tones, or a plurality of pitches.
11 and 21. Dmitriev teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the preference data of the user profile are determined based at least in part on the viewing history of the user [e.g. reactions to content, i.e. viewing history, para. 27].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights