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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification as published discloses an intermediate server to collect and organize the metadata received from multiple receivers ([0058]). However, the specification as originally-filed does not appear to disclose or suggest “wherein the transmitted information in conjunction with the table or array of items enables the second receiver to transmit information that enables a determination of a particular usage of the multimedia content of the first receiver,” as recited in claims 1, 31, and 40.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22-23, 25-32, and 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, in part, “wherein the transmitted information in conjunction with the table or array of items enables the second receiver to transmit information that enables a determination of a particular usage of the multimedia content of the first receiver.” Claims 31 and 40 recite similar limitations.
The specification as published discloses an intermediate server to collect and organize the metadata received from multiple receivers ([0058]). However, the specification as originally-filed does not appear to disclose or suggest “wherein the transmitted information in conjunction with the table or array of items enables the second receiver to transmit information that enables a determination of a particular usage of the multimedia content of the first receiver,” as recited in claim 1.
Claims 23, 25-30, 32, and 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph due to their dependencies on independent claims 1, 31, and 40.
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) 22, 25-28, 31, 34-37, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Levy et al. (US 2002/0162118), Zimmerman (US 2014/0259032), Eyer (US 2016/0301987), and McMillan (US 2014/0282669).
Regarding claim 22, Levy teaches a method for facilitating access to metadata associated with a multimedia content, comprising:
at a first receiver device that includes a first watermark extractor that is implemented at least partially in hardware ([0042], “A consumer 25 receives content via a receiver 24.” [0045], “A watermark detector residing in (or in communication with) STB 102 detects and decodes digital watermarks embedded within the content.” Figs. 1-3):
extracting a plurality of watermark messages from the multimedia content, each of the plurality of watermark messages having been embedded in a segment of the multimedia content ([0042], “A consumer 25 receives content via a receiver 24.” [0045], “A watermark detector residing in (or in communication with) STB 102 detects and decodes digital watermarks embedded within the content.” Figs. 1-3);
using at least a portion of a first watermark message of the plurality of watermark messages to obtain additional information regarding a first segment of the multimedia content that includes the first watermark message by transmitting a query to a metadata server ([0050], “To illustrate, suppose a TV program includes a pizza commercial. The watermark detector extracts a corresponding watermark identifier (e.g., the content identifier), and the STB 102 forwards the identifier to router 104. Router 104 queries database 106 to find corresponding interactive data. In this example, the interactive data is a URL for the pizza shop's website. The URL is received by the STB 102, which opens a communications channel for the URL (e.g., launches a web browser or other interface to access the pizza shop's website via the received URL).”); and
associating and storing one or more values of the first watermark message, one or more values of other watermark messages extracted from other segments of the multimedia content by the first watermark extractor, and the additional information to form a table or array of items that can be accessed by specifying the one or more values of the first watermark message or one or more values of the other watermark messages ([0035], “A content item may also be subdivided into sets, and a unique identifier is associated with each subset. For example, particular scenes, commercial segments, and/or video frames may each include unique identifiers.” [0050], [0065], “a STB includes a cached redirect table (or map) 222. The table is of sufficient size to accommodate potential (and future) requested content identifiers. A watermark detector 221 detects and decodes a content identifier from a digital watermark embedded within the content. The identifier is supplied to the cached redirect table 222 to index corresponding interactive data (e.g., a URL).” [0104], “For example, the STB may receive 1-3 hours worth of upcoming identifiers. The STB may then request associated interactive data, which is stored according locally at the STB according to the unique identifiers.” [0130], “The implementation of the functionality described above (including watermark decoding) is straightforward to artisans in the field, and thus not further belabored here. Conventionally, such technology is implemented by suitable software, stored in long-term memory (e.g., disk, ROM, etc.), and transferred to temporary memory (e.g., RAM) for execution on an associated CPU.”);
subsequent to formation of the table,
receiving the multimedia content at a second receiver device that includes a second watermark extractor that is implemented at least partially in hardware ([0042], “A consumer 25 receives content via a receiver 24.” [0045], “A watermark detector residing in (or in communication with) STB 102 detects and decodes digital watermarks embedded within the content.” [0090], “Typically, there will be a plurality of STBs associated with each cable head end.” Figs. 1-3) and
extracting the first watermark message and one or more additional watermark messages from the multimedia content using the second watermark extractor ([0045], “A watermark detector residing in (or in communication with) STB 102 detects and decodes digital watermarks embedded within the content.” Figs. 1-3); and
transmitting, for each of the watermark messages extracted by the second watermark extractor, information including a value of the watermark message and a time value to a database ([0036], “A digital watermark may include a unique identifier (or identifiers) in a payload, message or other watermark components.” [0050], “To illustrate, suppose a TV program includes a pizza commercial. The watermark detector extracts a corresponding watermark identifier (e.g., the content identifier), and the STB 102 forwards the identifier to router 104. Router 104 queries database 106 to find corresponding interactive data. In this example, the interactive data is a URL for the pizza shop's website. The URL is received by the STB 102, which opens a communications channel for the URL (e.g., launches a web browser or other interface to access the pizza shop's website via the received URL).” [0077], “a time code (and/or video frame number) may be supplied along with a content identifier to improve resolution of the database look-up.”).
Levy does not expressly teach wherein the query includes a server code and an interval code obtained from the first watermark message. Levy also does not expressly teach wherein the transmitted information in conjunction with the table or array of items enables the second receiver to transmit information that enables a determination of a particular usage of the multimedia content of the first receiver.
Zimmerman teaches watermark data enabling a determination of a particular usage of multimedia content ([0046], “As used herein, the terms ‘code’ or ‘watermark’ are used interchangeably and are defined to mean any identification information (e.g., an identifier) that may be inserted or embedded in the audio or video of media (e.g., a program or advertisement) for the purpose of identifying the media or for another purpose such as tuning (e.g., a packet identifying header).” [0039], “The example monitor 270 receives information related to the activities of the media device 205 and stores the information in a data store. In some examples, the monitor 270 receives information from the audio and/or video output 255, 257 so that the monitor 270 may identify the media being presented. For example, the monitor 270 may analyze the media to identify codes and/or signatures associated with the presented media. The example monitor 270 transmits the information in the data store to the central facility 275 so that it may be analyzed.” [0049], “the timestamper 340 timestamps media identifications and/or logging data stored in the data store 360 by the logging data receiver 310, the media identifier 330, the registration data receiver 350, etc.”).
In view of Zimmerman’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy wherein the transmitted information in conjunction with the table or array of items enables a determination of a particular usage of the multimedia content (i.e., the transmitted information and the table or array of items both enable a determination of a particular usage of the multimedia content). More specifically, in view of Zimmerman’s teaching of watermark data enabling a determination of a particular usage of multimedia content, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy to use watermark data of the transmitted information and watermark data of the table or array of items to enable a determination of a particular usage of the multimedia content. The modification would serve to facilitate identification and monitoring of audience viewing habits.
The combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein the query includes a server code and an interval code obtained from the first watermark message. While the combination teaches wherein the transmitted information in conjunction with the table or array of items enables a determination of a particular usage of the multimedia content (Zimmerman: [0046]), the combination does not expressly teach that the transmitted information in conjunction with the table or array of items enables the second receiver to transmit information that enables a determination of a particular usage of the multimedia content of the first receiver.
Eyer provides a teaching for a server code and time data obtained from a watermark ([0138], “In another embodiment, a URL of a remote server or any other information about the content is provided as metadata embedded as the watermark. In another embodiment, two data elements are included in the embedded metadata to identify the media time, the media time in whole seconds is specified in the content ID message while the media time in frames is specified in the frame count message such that timing accuracy is frame-level. Further, the embedded metadata may be used to provide event triggers, that are time-sensitive, in real time.”).
In view of Eyer’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination wherein the query includes a server code and an interval code obtained from the first watermark message. The modification would improve a combined system by facilitating access to remote content and enabling insertion of time-sensitive events.
While the combination teaches wherein the transmitted information in conjunction with the table or array of items enables a determination of a particular usage of the multimedia content (Zimmerman: [0046]), the combination does not expressly teach that the transmitted information in conjunction with the table or array of items enables the second receiver to transmit information that enables a determination of a particular usage of the multimedia content of the first receiver.
McMillan teaches transmitted information enables a second receiver to transmit information that enables a determination of a particular usage of multimedia content of a first receiver ([0037], “As described in detail below, the example usage monitor 114 of FIG. 1 communicates data (e.g., media identifier(s), application identifier(s), timestamp(s), etc.) indicative of secondary media accessed on the secondary media device 112 to the example meter 106 of FIG. 1. For example, the example usage monitor 114 of FIG. 1 periodically and/or aperiodically transmits a message having a payload of media identifying information to the meter 106. Additionally or alternatively, the example usage monitor 114 transmits the data to the meter 106 in response to queries from the meter 106, which periodically and/or aperiodically polls the environment 100 for usage information from, for example, the usage monitor 114 and/or any other suitable source (e.g., using usage monitors resident on other secondary media device(s)).”).
In view of McMillan’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination such that the transmitted information in conjunction with the table or array of items enables the second receiver to transmit information that enables a determination of a particular usage of the multimedia content of the first receiver. The modification would serve to facilitate identification of content usage of multiple user devices.
Regarding claim 31, Levy teaches a system comprising: a first device comprising a first processor and a first memory comprising processor executable code ([0050]-[0053], [0055]), a second device comprising a second processor and a second memory comprising processor executable code ([0042], “A consumer 25 receives content via a receiver 24.” [0045], “A watermark detector residing in (or in communication with) STB 102 detects and decodes digital watermarks embedded within the content.” [0050]-[0053], [0055], [0090], “Typically, there will be a plurality of STBs associated with each cable head end.” Figs. 1-3)The grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 presented with respect to claim 22 are similarly applied to the remaining limitations of claim 31.
Regarding claim 40, Levy teaches a computer program product, embodied on one or more non-transitory computer readable media ([0050]-[0053], [0055]). The grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 presented with respect to claim 22 are similarly applied to the remaining limitations of claim 40.
Regarding claims 25 and 34, the combination further teaches wherein associating the one or more values of the first watermark message and the one or more values of the other watermark messages and the additional information includes one or both of:
associating a watermark payload value with the additional information (Levy: [0036], “A digital watermark may include a unique identifier (or identifiers) in a payload, message or other watermark components.” [0050], “To illustrate, suppose a TV program includes a pizza commercial. The watermark detector extracts a corresponding watermark identifier (e.g., the content identifier), and the STB 102 forwards the identifier to router 104. Router 104 queries database 106 to find corresponding interactive data. In this example, the interactive data is a URL for the pizza shop's website. The URL is received by the STB 102, which opens a communications channel for the URL (e.g., launches a web browser or other interface to access the pizza shop's website via the received URL).”), or
associating a plurality of watermark symbol values with the additional information.
Regarding claims 26 and 35, the combination further teaches wherein specification of one or both of the watermark payload value or the plurality of watermark symbol values enables access to the corresponding additional information from the table or array of items (Levy: [0036], “A digital watermark may include a unique identifier (or identifiers) in a payload, message or other watermark components.” [0050], “To illustrate, suppose a TV program includes a pizza commercial. The watermark detector extracts a corresponding watermark identifier (e.g., the content identifier), and the STB 102 forwards the identifier to router 104. Router 104 queries database 106 to find corresponding interactive data. In this example, the interactive data is a URL for the pizza shop's website. The URL is received by the STB 102, which opens a communications channel for the URL (e.g., launches a web browser or other interface to access the pizza shop's website via the received URL).” [0065], “a STB includes a cached redirect table (or map) 222. The table is of sufficient size to accommodate potential (and future) requested content identifiers. A watermark detector 221 detects and decodes a content identifier from a digital watermark embedded within the content. The identifier is supplied to the cached redirect table 222 to index corresponding interactive data (e.g., a URL).”).
Regarding claims 27 and 36, the combination further teaches wherein the transmitting includes transmitting information including a plurality of symbols values of the watermark message and the time value at the second watermark extractor to the database (Levy: [0036], “A digital watermark may include a unique identifier (or identifiers) in a payload, message or other watermark components.” [0050], “To illustrate, suppose a TV program includes a pizza commercial. The watermark detector extracts a corresponding watermark identifier (e.g., the content identifier), and the STB 102 forwards the identifier to router 104. Router 104 queries database 106 to find corresponding interactive data. In this example, the interactive data is a URL for the pizza shop's website. The URL is received by the STB 102, which opens a communications channel for the URL (e.g., launches a web browser or other interface to access the pizza shop's website via the received URL).” [0077], “a time code (and/or video frame number) may be supplied along with a content identifier to improve resolution of the database look-up.”).
Regarding claims 28 and 37, the combination further teaches wherein the particular usage of the multimedia content includes one or more of the following: (A) consumption duration of the multimedia content, (B) an identifier of the multimedia content, (C) a type of multimedia content that was consumed (Levy: [0036], [0050], “To illustrate, suppose a TV program includes a pizza commercial. The watermark detector extracts a corresponding watermark identifier (e.g., the content identifier), and the STB 102 forwards the identifier to router 104. Router 104 queries database 106 to find corresponding interactive data. In this example, the interactive data is a URL for the pizza shop's website. The URL is received by the STB 102, which opens a communications channel for the URL (e.g., launches a web browser or other interface to access the pizza shop's website via the received URL).” [0065], [0077]), or (D) a change in the multimedia content.
Claim(s) 23 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Levy, Zimmerman, Eyer, McMillan, and Choi et al. (US 2016/0112771).
Regarding claims 23 and 32, the combination further teaches wherein, for each of the extracted watermark messages, the additional information includes one or more of the following:
a service identifier associated with the corresponding segment of the multimedia content;
a program identifier associated with the corresponding segment of the multimedia content, or
a service presentation time that represents a time frame within which the corresponding segment of the multimedia content is presented.
Choi teaches a system, wherein, for extracted an watermark message, receiving additional information including a program identifier associated with a corresponding segment of multimedia content ([0076], “The fingerprint extraction module 211 extracts a fingerprint from the broadcasting contents.” [0077], “The content recognition module 213 identifies a fingerprint, which matches the extracted fingerprint, in the local fingerprint DB 231 and acquires a content ID corresponding to the identified fingerprint from the local fingerprint DB 231.”).
In view of Choi’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination such that that, for each of the extracted watermark messages, the additional information includes a program identifier associated with the corresponding segment of the multimedia content. The modification would produce a combined system enabled to identify currently-viewed content based on an extracted watermark. The modification would serve to improve convenience for users, and would serve to facilitate further operations, e.g., targeted advertising.
Claim(s) 29 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Levy, Zimmerman, Eyer, McMillan, and Petrovic et al. (US 2006/0239503).
Regarding claims 29 and 38, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach further teaches wherein each of the extracted watermark messages is extracted from an audio component of the multimedia content that is 1.5 seconds in duration.
Petrovic provides a teaching for audio watermarks embedded in multimedia content, wherein the audio watermarks are a few seconds in duration ([0125], “there are typically many opportunities for insertion of watermarks in most multimedia content (e.g., a typical movie is 2 hours long whereas a typical audio watermark is only a few seconds in duration).”).
In view of Petrovic’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination such that each of the extracted watermarks is extracted from an audio component of the multimedia content that is 1.5 seconds in duration. The modification would allow for many opportunities for watermark insertion in multimedia content. The modification would thereby serve to improve convenience for users, and would serve to facilitate further operations, e.g., targeted advertising.
Claim(s) 30 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Levy, Zimmerman, Eyer, McMillan, and Panje et al. (US 8826346).
Regarding claims 30 and 39, the combination further teaches wherein the additional information is obtained by receiving a recovery data table from a recovery server located remotely from the first receiver device.
Panje teaches a client device receiving a recovery data table from a recovery server located remotely from the client device (Col. 1, lines 18-34, “Television programming and other multimedia content (MM content), including audio, video, graphics, text and data, may also be distributed using digital cable technology.” Col. 3, lines 60 to 67, “The IP client selects the MM content for presentation based on commands communicated to the client device, for example by a hand-held remote control device.” Col. 4, lines 1-10, “The client receives the manifest, recovers the URIs for chunk files from the manifest and sends HTTP commands identifying URI to the server.”).
In view of Panje’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination such that the additional information is obtained by receiving a recovery data table from a recovery server located remotely from the first receiver device. By using a recovery data table stored at a server to access additional information, the modification would improve the combined system by ensuring proper distribution of additional information to client devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R TELAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5940. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at (571) 272-4195. 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.
/MICHAEL R TELAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
