Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 13, 2022

2020005308 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/268,695 05/02/2014 Jian Huang 20140154 4948 168881 7590 01/13/2022 VERIZON - SCLC LEGAL DEPT - PATENTS 1300 I STREET NW SUITE 500 EAST WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER JOHNSON-CALDERON, FRANK J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2425 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/13/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): VZPatent168881@verizon.com docket@snyderllp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JIAN HUANG, GONG ZHANG, JIANXIU HAO, GAURAV D. MEHTA, and ISHAN AWASTHI Appeal 2020-005308 Application 14/268,695 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8, 18-20, and 23-29 which constitute all of the claims pending. Claims App. Claims 9-17, 21 and 22 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We refer to the Specification, filed May 2, 2014 (“Spec.”); the Non-Final Office Action, mailed Nov. 13, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed Apr. 16, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 12, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed July 10, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Verizon Communications, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-005308 Application 14/268,695 2 II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to modified search and advertisements for second screen devices. Title. A user while viewing a video on a large screen device (first screen device) may also use a small screen device (second screen device) to perform searches related to video assets being streamed on the large screen. Spec. ¶ 18. When the second screen device receives a search query, it may modify the search based on the detected video asset playing on the first screen device and based on keywords associated with that video asset to subsequently provide results to the second screen device. Spec. ¶ 20-24. Figure 1, reproduced below, is a diagram useful for understanding the claimed subject matter: Appeal 2020-005308 Application 14/268,695 3 As depicted in Figure 1 above, TV display 116 represents the claimed “first screen device” which displays content received from STB 114 (set top box) or media device 115 (a digital media player configured to stream digital media). Mobile device 130 represents the claimed “second screen device.” Figure 7, reproduced below, is a flow chart useful for understanding the claimed subject matter: Here, the claimed method is initiated by a query received from a second screen device(.e.g., a cell phone) in which the user types in a query, while watching a video asset on a first screen device(.e.g., a TV). Appeal 2020-005308 Application 14/268,695 4 Figure 10, reproduced below, illustrates what is shown on the second screen device while a video asset is streaming on the first screen device. As shown in Fig. 10 above, the film Sherlock Holmes is streaming on a first screen device while a second screen device - mobile device 130 - is about to initiate a search query. The claimed subject matter provides for Appeal 2020-005308 Application 14/268,695 5 suggested keywords and an advertisement to appear on the second screen device. Figure 11, reproduced below, illustrates the flow of the steps of claim 1. Claims 1, 18, and 23 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, performed by a computer device, the method comprising: selecting, by the computer device, a first set of one or more of keywords for a video asset based on metadata associated with the video asset; selecting, by the computer device, a second set of one or more keywords for the video asset based on web pages associated with the video asset; Appeal 2020-005308 Application 14/268,695 6 selecting, by the computer device, a third set of one or more keywords for the video asset based on historical search data associated with the video asset, wherein the historical search data includes search queries that include information identifying the video asset; selecting, by the computer device, a fourth set of one or more keywords for the video asset based on content extracted from the video asset; storing, by the computer device, the selected first set, second set, third set, and fourth set as a plurality of keywords in a video asset record, associated with the video asset, in a video asset database, wherein the video asset record includes video segment fields, wherein a particular video segment field includes information identifying a start time for a particular video segment of the video asset record and further includes keyword fields, and wherein a particular keyword field includes a particular keyword, a keyword score for the particular keyword, historical data that identifies how often the particular keyword has been included in search queries related to the video asset, and related keywords associated with the particular keyword based on video asset metadata associated with the video asset; receiving, by the computer device, a search query from a second screen device; receiving, by the computer device and from a first screen device via a connection that does not include the second screen device, information identifying that the video asset is being streamed to the first screen device, wherein the first screen device is associated with the second screen device; determining, by the computer device, that the video asset is being streamed to the first screen device based on receiving the information from the first screen device; modifying, by the computer device, the search query based on one or more keywords of the plurality of keywords, stored in the video asset record associated with the video asset, based on determining that the video asset is being streamed to the first screen device; obtaining, by the computer device, search results based on the modified search query; and Appeal 2020-005308 Application 14/268,695 7 providing, by the computer device, the obtained search results to the second screen device. Appeal Br. 25-26 (Claims App.). III. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence.3 Name Reference Date Ito US 2005/0080764 A1 April 14, 2005 Gulli et al. US 2007/0130602 Al June 7, 2007 Kunjithapatham et al. US 2009/0112848 Al April 30, 2009 Song et al. US 2011/0264682 Al Oct. 27, 2011 Wetzer et al. US 2012/0144416 Al June 7, 2012 Skolicki US 2014/0188925 A1 July 3, 2014 Jones et al. US 2015/0019566 Al Jan. 15, 2015 IV. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claim 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Song, Kunjithapatham, Ito, Skolicki, and Wetzer. Non-Final Act. 3-12.4 The Examiner rejects claims 3, 6, 25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Song, Kunjithapatham, Ito, Skolicki, Wetzer, and Jones. Non-Final Act. 12-13. 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. 4 The reference to Narahara in the Final Action at page 3 is a typographical error, as confirmed by the Examiner in the Answer. See Ans. 3. (“Examiner confirms that Narahara was not relied upon for the rejection and its appearance in the grounds of rejection is a typographical mistake.”). Appeal 2020-005308 Application 14/268,695 8 The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Song, Kunjithapatham, Ito, Skolicki, Wetzer, and Gulli. Non-Final Act. 13. V. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 11-23 and the Reply Brief, pages 4-10.5 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions on the obviousness rejections. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons specific to the obviousness rejections set forth in the Non-Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Final Act. 3-14; Ans. 3-8. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. A. Obviousness Rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Appellant argues that Ito does not teach the limitation “a keyword score for the particular keyword, historical data that identifies how often the particular keyword has been included in search queries related to the video asset,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 13-15. Specifically, Appellant argues the sections of Ito cited to by the Examiner do not teach or suggest the limitation “a video asset record or a video asset database.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant further argues the cited sections of Ito also do not teach or suggest the limitation “related keywords associated with a particular 5 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Appeal 2020-005308 Application 14/268,695 9 keyword based on video asset metadata associated with the video asset.” Appeal Br. 14-15. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because Appellant is arguing the references separately. Ans. 5. While the Examiner cites to Ito for teaching or suggesting the limitation “a keyword score for the particular keyword, historical data that identifies how often the particular keyword has been included in search queries related to the video asset,” the Examiner specifically cites to Song and Kunjithapatham for teaching the disputed limitations of a video asset, a video asset record, or a video asset database. See Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Kunjithapatham’s video content, recorded video program ¶¶ 33, 47, 48, 51-52); see also Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Song ¶¶ 88, 60-61, 34, 84, 85, Figs. 3, 5), Ans. 5. Furthermore, Ito’s “broadcast program,” “episode of program,” “picture of program,” “DVD,” depicted throughout its figures and in paragraphs 179, 327, 344, and 376, at least suggest a “video asset.” Ans. 5. Regarding the second disputed limitation “related keywords associated with a particular keyword based on video asset metadata associated with the video asset,” (Appeal Br. 14-15), we agree with the Examiner , and Appellant does not dispute, that Song’s keywords associated with the first episode of x-files teaches or at least suggests this limitation. Non-Final Act. 5(citing Song ¶ 69). Appellant next argues the Examiner has not articulated a reasoning for combining the Ito and Song references. Appeal Br. 16. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because the Examiner provides ample reasoning for combining these two references in the Answer, and Appellant does not traverse the Examiner’s specific reasoning in the Reply. See Appeal 2020-005308 Application 14/268,695 10 Ans. 6, Reply 7. We are not persuaded by Appellant because Appellant merely makes a conclusory statement disagreeing with the Examiner’s reasoning, but provides no substantive reasoning or basis for the assertion that the Examiner’s reasoning is flawed. Reply 7. Therefore, on this record, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and so we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 and grouped claims 2, 4, 5, 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 29 under this same rejection because Appellant does not present separate, substantive arguments. We also sustain the Examiner’s separate obviousness rejections of claims 3, 8, 20, 25, and 28 because Appellant does not present separate, substantive arguments regarding the limitations of these claims. B. Obviousness Rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Dependent Claim 7 recites: The method of claim 1, further comprising: modifying the search results based on a measure of relevance to the video asset. The Examiner finds Skolicki’s ranking/customizing search results based on contextual information teaches this limitation. Non-Final Act. 11. Appellant argues Skolicki does not teach or suggest “determining a measure of relevance to a video asset.” Appeal Br. 18-19. Appellant argues Skolicki does not teach modifying the search results based on a measure of relevance to the video asset, but instead orders and ranks the search results based on their relevance to the augmented search query as a whole, rather than based on their relevance to the content being presented to the user. Appeal Br. 19. Appeal 2020-005308 Application 14/268,695 11 The Examiner under a broad but reasonable interpretation finds the claim term “a measure of relevance” does not preclude search results that are obtained from contextual information and ranked and customized as taught in Skolicki. Ans. 6-7. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred because Skolicki’s contextual information in the augmented search query leads to customized search results that are ranked and emphasized based on their “relation to each other” (See Skolicki ¶ 99), which at least suggests the claim term “relevance.” Therefore, on this record, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and so we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 7. C. Obviousness Rejection of dependent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Dependent claim 6 recites: The method of claim 1, further comprising: selecting one or more advertisements based on the one or more keywords associated with the video asset; and providing the one or more advertisements to the second screen device in connection with the obtained search results. The Examiner rejects dependent claim 6 as obvious under the combined teachings and suggestions of Song, Kunjithapatham, Ito, Skolicki, Wetzer, and Jones. Non-Final Act. 12-13. The Examiner specifically finds Jones’s selecting targeted advertisements based on the search query and returning the results to the user teaches the limitation in this dependent claim. Non-Final Act. 13, citing Jones ¶¶ 44, 45. Appellant argues the cited sections of Jones do not teach or suggest “providing an advertisement to a second screen device” and specifically Appeal 2020-005308 Application 14/268,695 12 argues “the phrase ‘second screen’ does not appear anywhere in Jones.” Appeal Br. 22. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because Appellant is arguing the references separately. The Examiner relies upon Jones for teaching the advertisement component of the limitation. Non-Final Act. 13, citing Jones ¶¶ 44, 45. The Examiner cites to Skolicki’s second communication device, which includes a search component providing a search query to a search engine, for teaching or at least suggesting “providing an advertisement to a second screen device in connection with the obtained search results.” See Skolicki ¶¶ 19, 20, 27, Ans. 7-8. Appellant presents no arguments rebutting the Examiner’s citations to Skolicki. Appeal Br. 21-22. Therefore, on this record, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and so we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 6. VI. CONCLUSIONS We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-8, 18-20, and 23-29. Appeal 2020-005308 Application 14/268,695 13 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29 103 Song, Kunjithapatham, Ito, Skolicki, Wetzer 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29 3, 6, 25, 28 103 Song, Kunjithapatham, Ito, Skolicki, Wetzer, Jones 3, 6, 25, 28 8, 20 103 Song, Kunjithapatham, Ito, Skolicki, Wetzer, Gulli 8, 20 Overall Outcome 1-8, 18-20, 23-29 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED