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 § 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 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oztaskent et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0138549) in view of Ikezoye et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0044189).
Regarding claim 1, Oztaskent et al. discloses a computer-implemented method comprising (see paragraphs 0007, 0010, 0064-0066; systems and methods executed by hardware processors for identifying content):
receiving an audio cue associated with an unknown media segment, wherein the audio cue includes a set of words derived from the unknown media segment (see paragraph 0007, 0010, 0023, 0038-0040, 0048; receives content having audio (broadcast media signal containing audio). The audio is used for identification);
searching a known media database using the set of words (see paragraphs 0007, 0023, 0032-0033, 0041, 0052; generates a second search query using the extracted text and searches a lyrics database), wherein searching the known media database includes comparing the set of words with words associated with known media segments (see paragraphs 0012-0014, 0039-0041, 0049; text corresponding to spoken or sung words is obtained from captioning, OCR, or speech recognition performed on the audio);
identifying a particular known media segment from the known media database (see paragraphs 0007, 0032-0033, 0042-0043, 0052, 0061; upon finding matching lyrics, the lyrics database returns a song identifier corresponding to the known song), wherein the particular known media segment is associated with one or more words that at least partially matches the set of words of the unknown media segment (see paragraphs 0032-0033, 0052; lyrics database compares the text block against lyrics stored for known songs and determines whether a match exists).
However, Oztaskent et al. is silent as to executing an event in response to identifying the unknown media segment.
Ikezoye et al. discloses executing an event in response to identifying the unknown media segment (see abstract and paragraph 0025; generating a log of the user activity, providing an option to purchase media to the user, and displaying the content-related information on the media playing device).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Oztaskent et al. with the teaching of Ikezoye et al., the motivation being to enhance user interaction.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, Oztaskent et al. and Ikezoye et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1, 8 and 15). Oztaskent et al. discloses wherein the audio cue includes closed captions or subtitles (see paragraphs 0012-0014, 0039-0041, 0049; obtaining text associated with the audio from closed captioning, and alternatively from subtitles, for use in identifying media content).
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, Oztaskent et al. and Ikezoye et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1, 8 and 15). Oztaskent et al. discloses wherein the audio cue includes the set of words (see paragraphs 0012-0014, 0039-0041, 0049, 0052; obtaining text corresponding to spoken or sung words from the received audio using closed captions, subtitles, or speech recognition, and using those words as the search query for identifying the media).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, Oztaskent et al. and Ikezoye et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1, 8 and 15). Oztaskent et al. discloses wherein the audio cue is extracted from a video channel of the unknown media segment (see paragraphs 0007-0014, 0023, 0039-0041, 0049; receiving television or other audiovisual media content, extracts textual information corresponding to the audio associated with the video content (e.g., closed captions, subtitles, or speech recognition), and uses the extracted words to identify the media).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, Oztaskent et al. and Ikezoye et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1, 8 and 15). Oztaskent et al. discloses wherein identifying the particular known media segment from the known media database includes:
defining a word window comprising a sequence of words from the audio cue (see paragraphs 0033, 0040-0041, fig. 4A (step 425); a “word window” is simply a subset/portion/block of the extracted words); and
matching one or more of the sequence of words to one or more words of a reference audio cue (see paragraphs 0033, 0007, 0023).
Regarding claims 7, 14, Oztaskent et al. and Ikezoye et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1, 8 ). Oztaskent et al. discloses wherein identifying the particular known media segment from the known media database includes: transmitting a communication to a device associated with the unknown media segment (see paragraphs 0042, 0007), wherein the communication includes an indication that the unknown media segment is being displayed (see paragraphs 0007, 0072).
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oztaskent et al. and Ikezoye et al. as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Loheide et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0204849).
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, Oztaskent et al. and Ikezoye et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1, 8 and 15). Ikezoye et al. discloses wherein executing the event includes: transmitting instructions based on identifying the unknown media segment (see abstract, paragraphs 0025).
However, Oztaskent et al. and Ikezoye et al. are silent as to wherein the instructions, when received by a media device, causes the media device to present an alternative media segment in place of the unknown media segment.
Loheide et al. discloses wherein the instructions, when received by a media device, causes the media device to present an alternative media segment in place of the unknown media segment (see paragraph 0151).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Oztaskent et al. and Ikezoye et al. with the teaching of Loheide et al., the motivation being to substitute the original media segment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NNENNA NGOZI EKPO whose telephone number is (571)270-1663. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 10:00am - 6:30pm, TH-F 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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.
NNENNA EKPO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/NNENNA N EKPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 June 26, 2026.
Prosecution Insights