KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 19, 20212020006609 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/974,300 12/18/2015 Anand Srinivasan SRINIVASAN NATESAN 2014P01517US 9415 24737 7590 04/19/2021 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 465 Columbus Avenue Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 EXAMINER LULTSCHIK, WILLIAM G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/19/2021 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): katelyn.mulroy@philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com patti.demichele@Philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ANAND SRINIVASAN SRINIVASAN NATESAN, RITHESH SREENIVASAN, RAJENDRA SINGH SISODIA, and SHAHIN BASHEER __________________ Appeal 2020-006609 Application 14/974,300 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, JAMES P. CALVE, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–6 and 8–21, which are all the pending claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Koninklijke Philips N.V. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claim 7 is cancelled. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.); see Final Act. 2. Appeal 2020-006609 Application 14/974,300 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 17, and 21 are independent. Representative claim 1 recites: 1. A system for providing dynamic content, the system comprising: a computer system that comprises one or more physical processor programmed with computer program instructions which, when executed, cause the computer system to: obtain a video file based on one or more predetermined criteria; obtain information associated with a user to which dynamic content derived from at least a video portion of the video file is to be presented; process, based on the information associated with the user, the video file to determine one or more reference points within the video file; select video content segments from the video file based on the one or more reference points such that a first video content segment of the video file is selected and a second video content segment of the video file is not selected; obtain vital sign information indicating one or more vital signs of the user; generate, based on the selection and the vital sign information, the dynamic content that comprises the first video content segment and additional content related to the first video content segment, wherein the additional content indicates the vital sign information; and provide the dynamic content for presentation to the user. REJECTIONS3 Claims 17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Xu.4 3 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 13, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See Final Act. 3. 4 US 2014/0075295 A1, published March 13, 2014. Appeal 2020-006609 Application 14/974,300 3 Claims 1, 2, 4, and 9–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Xu and Leichner.5 Claims 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Xu, Leichner, and Tojo.6 Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Xu, Leichner, and Ambwani.7 Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Xu and Leichner. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Xu, Leichner, and Tojo. ANALYSIS Claims 17, 20, and 21 as Anticipated by Xu Regarding independent claims 17 and 21, the Examiner determines that Xu discloses a method of providing dynamic content and a non- transitory computer-readable media with instructions for obtaining a video file based on predetermined criteria, obtaining information associated with a user to which dynamic content derived from a video portion of the video file is to be presented, processing, based on the information associated with the user, the video file to determine reference points in the video file, generating, based on the reference points, dynamic content that comprises a first video portion and additional content related to the first video portion, and providing dynamic content for presentation to the user. Final Act. 4–6. 5 US 2008/0268413 A1, published October 30, 2008. 6 US 2014/0143805 A1, published May 22, 2014. 7 US 2012/0011109 A1, published January 12, 2012. Appeal 2020-006609 Application 14/974,300 4 Appellant argues that Xu does not “process, based on the information associated with the user, the video file to determine one or more reference points within the video file,” as recited in claims 17 and 21. Appeal Br. 7–8. In particular, Appellant argues that Xu discloses a user interface configured to enable a user to manually specify insertion points for adding a subject’s personal information to a video, and Xu may automatically generate a script based on the user-specified insertion points to produce a video containing personal information, but the insertion points are not based on a user’s personal information as claimed. Id. at 8. As a result, Appellant asserts that Xu’s system does not process a video file based on information associated with the user to determine reference points in the video file as claimed. Id. Appellant also contends: Appellant has considered the automatic generation of the script, and based on the above descriptions of Xu, the automatic generation of the script requires manually specified insertion points parsed from a GUI combined with a base template or script. See ¶ 43. Xu does not disclose or suggest any alternative method to automatically generate a script. That is, although the script is “automatically generated,” the user manually specifies the insertion points via a GUI (rather than the system determining the insertion points based on the user/personal information) in combination with the base template or script. Reply Br. 3–4. The Specification describes an integration subsystem that determines reference points in an audio or video file by processing the audio or video for concepts or keywords and their respective locations to identify portions that are suitable for or relevant to present dynamic content to a user. Spec. ¶ 27. However, the independent claims do not recite this level of detail. Appeal 2020-006609 Application 14/974,300 5 As claimed, the method and media process “based on the information associated with the user, the video file to determine reference points within the video file.” Appeal Br. 15, 17 (Claims App.). Xu determines reference points (insertion points) in a video file based on information associated with a user. As illustrated in Figure 1, Xu determines which insertion point to use with particular user information, i.e., based on information associated with a user, as claimed. Xu ¶¶ 19–21. Xu determines, based on a patient’s diabetic malady information 25, an insertion point for this dynamic information in a diabetes diagnosis video 20. Id. Xu processes other personalized patient information to determine reference points in video files where this dynamic content can be inserted and chooses insertion points based on information associated with the patient as claimed. For example, based on personalized patient testing/lab results 35, symptoms 45, medical images 55, customized drugs 65, and customized care plans 75, Xu determines reference points in videos for diabetic testing 30, diabetic symptoms 40, typical symptoms 50, drugs/prescription 60, and care plan 70, respectively, where this dynamic content 35–75 can be inserted. Id. Xu generates a video script based on information associated with a patient to include determining where personalized and generic information is inserted, combined, merged, overlaid, or parameterized to merge into a stock video. Xu ¶ 20. Xu’s system converts patient information that is entered into a graphical user interface (GUI) into parameters that include insertion locations in video files for personalized patient content. Id. ¶¶ 33. Xu’s interface program parses user specific information from a GUI to set pre- defined variables or parameters and generate user-specific code used for including or excluding particular sections or effects. Id. ¶ 43. Appeal 2020-006609 Application 14/974,300 6 Even when Xu creates video scripts using stock videos with fixed or predetermined insertion points, Xu’s interface program processes video files, based on information associated with a patient, to determine which fixed or predetermined insertion points to use in the video for inserting each type of patient content. Xu ¶¶ 19–21, 36, 39, 40, 43. Even if Figure 1 illustrates fixed/predetermined insertion points in stock videos 20–70, Xu generates a script by determining which insertion point in each video 20–70 is used for each type of patient information. Thus, the system determines, based on a patient’s diabetes malady 25, an insertion/reference point in diabetic type stock video 20. The system also determines, based on patient testing or lab results, an insertion/reference point in diabetic testing/vitals stock video 30. See id. ¶¶ 19–21, 33–36, 39–43. Personalized information can be streamed automatically from an electronic medical record into stock videos. Id. ¶ 35. A preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s findings that Xu processes a video file, based on information associated with a user, to determine reference points in the video file, as recited in claims 17 and 21. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 17 and 21 as well as claim 20, which is not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Claims 1, 2, 4, and 9–16 Rejected over Xu and Leichner Appellant does not present arguments for this rejection apart from arguing that Xu does not determine reference points within the video file based on information associated with the user as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 3–4. These arguments are not persuasive for reasons discussed above for claims 17 and 21. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 4, and 9–16, which fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Appeal 2020-006609 Application 14/974,300 7 Claims 3, 5, and 6, Rejected over Xu, Leichner, and Tojo Claim 3 depends indirectly from claim 1 and recites wherein the vital sign information is obtained from the one or more vital monitoring devices during a presentation of a first portion of the dynamic content to the user, and the additional content representing the vital sign information is generated during the presentation of the first portion of the dynamic content, and wherein a second portion of the dynamic content comprising the additional content is presented to the user subsequent to the presentation of the first portion of the dynamic content. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Tojo displays a first portion of dynamic content to a user as moving pictures to prompt a user to collect vital signs during a television program. Final Act. 18; Ans. 28. The Examiner finds that Tojo collects vital signs data during presentation of the moving pictures, generates additional content with the vital signs data, and presents the vital signs data subsequent to presentation of the first portion of dynamic content. Final Act. 18; Ans. 28 (citing Tojo ¶¶ 35, 38–41, 61, Figs. 6–8, 10). Appellant argues that Tojo does not obtain vital sign information from a monitoring device during presentation of a first portion of dynamic content such as when moving picture data is displayed on a television. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues that the user measures body information only after the first portion of dynamic content has been presented (i.e., after the moving picture data has finished running) and the cable program has resumed. Id. at 6. The Examiner has not established that Tojo measures and generates vital sign information during a presentation of moving picture data, which the Examiner considers to be the claimed first portion of the dynamic content. See Ans. 28; Final Act. 18. Appeal 2020-006609 Application 14/974,300 8 Tojo displays moving picture data on a television to prompt a user to measure blood pressure and weight. Tojo ¶¶ 31, 39, 112, 113, Fig. 10. The moving picture data is presented for 10 seconds to one minute. Id. ¶ 112. We find no teaching to measure vital signs during a moving picture. Instead, viewers must activate measurement instruments by turning on the power. Id. ¶ 93, 94, Fig. 4. Then, the controller waits for the blood pressure and body weight to be measured before trying to establish communication to gateway 200 to transmit the obtained body information. Id. ¶¶ 95, 96, Fig. 4. None of the measurement instruments is configured to obtain or generate blood pressure or weight automatically while the moving picture data is displayed. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 3. Claims 5 and 6 do not depend from claim 3 and are not argued by Appellant. Therefore, we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6. Claim 8 Rejected over Xu, Leichner, and Ambwani Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites generating content segment files. Appeal Br. 13–14 (Claims App.). Appellant does not argue this rejection. See Appeal Br. 7–11. Thus, we summarily sustain this rejection. Claim 18 Rejected over Xu and Leichner Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and obtains vital sign information from vital sign monitoring devices to generate additional content. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). Appellant does not argue this rejection. Appeal Br. 7–11. Thus, we summarily sustain this rejection. Claim 19 Rejected over Xu, Leichner, and Tojo Claim 19 depends indirectly from claim 17 and recites similar subject matter as claim 3. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-006609 Application 14/974,300 9 The Examiner again relies on Tojo for this feature. See Final Act. 25. We agree with Appellant that Tojo does not teach this feature for the reasons that were discussed above for claim 3. See Appeal Br. 8–11. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 19. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 17, 20, 21 102(a)(2) Xu 17, 20, 21 1, 2, 4, 9–16 103 Xu, Leichner 1, 2, 4, 9–16 3, 5, 6 103 Xu, Leichner, Tojo 5, 6 3 8 103 Xu, Leichner, Ambwani 8 18 103 Xu, Leichner 18 19 Xu, Leichner, Tojo 19 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4–6, 8– 18, 20, 21 3, 19 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation