DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/09/2026 has been entered.
NOTE: Claims 1-8 are cancelled with application’s permission. See the office action (NOA) mailed on 01/21/2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-24 are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-12, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Quennesson (Pub. No. US 2018/0025078).
Regarding claim 9, Quennesson teaches a method comprising [Para. 43]: identifying an audio-video (AV) entity (video broadcast stream) [Para. 62 “The video highlight creator 380 may obtain a video broadcast stream 364, and may receive one or more social media metrics indicating a volume of social media engagements 312 associated with the video broadcast stream 364 from a social media platform 304”]; using audio (audio component) from the AV entity (video broadcast stream), identifying plural first candidate segments (video segments) of the AV entity for establishing a summary of the entity [Para. 71 “The audio analyzer 314 may be configured to analyze the audio component of the video broadcast stream 364 to obtain information helpful for automatically creating the video segments of the video highlights 381. “For example, the audio analyzer 314 may analyze the audio component of the video broadcast stream 364 to obtain information that can assist with identifying the video broadcast stream 364, the nature of the video broadcast stream 364, the underlying events or objects (including persons) captured by the video broadcast stream 364, and/or the starting and ending points for one or more video segments of the video highlights 381”]; using video (video component) from the AV entity, identifying plural second candidate segments (video segments) of the AV entity for establishing a summary of the entity [Para. 68 “The video analyzer 322 may be configured to analyze the video component of the video broadcast stream 364 to obtain information helpful for automatically creating the video highlights 181.”]; identifying at least one parameter (sentiment) associated with chat (social media engagement) related to the AV entity (video broadcast stream) [Para. 62 “The social media engagements 312 may be information exchanged on the social media platform that relates to the video broadcast stream 364 such as messages, posts, comments, signals of appreciation about the video broadcast stream 364”; Para. 73 “if the video highlight creator 380 determines that the sentiment associated with the social media engagements 312 is negative (or beyond a certain threshold), the video highlight creator 380 may decide not to include that video segments within the video highlights 381. On the other hand, if the video highlight creator 380
determines that the sentiment associated with the segment's social media engagements 312 is relatively positive, the video highlight creator 380 may decide to include those video segments in the video highlights 381”]; selecting at least some of the plural first and second candidate segments (video segments) based at least in part on the parameter (sentiment) [Para. 73]; and using the at least some of the plural first and second candidate segments (selected video segments), generating a video summary (video highlights) of the AV entity that is shorter than the AV entity [Para. 3, and 4. It is clear that the summary/highlights are shorter].
Regarding claim 10, Quennesson teaches presenting the video summary/highlight on a display [Para. 51 and 90].
Regarding claim 11, Quennesson teaches wherein using video from the AV entity for identifying plural second candidate segments of the AV entity comprises identifying scene changes in the AV entity [Para. 70].
Regarding claim 12, Quennesson teaches wherein using video from the AV entity for identifying plural second candidate segments of the AV entity comprises identifying text (closed captioned data) in the video of the AV entity [Para. 71].
Regarding claim 16, Quennesson teaches wherein using audio from the AV entity for identifying plural first candidate segments of the AV entity comprises identifying words (keywords) in speech in the audio [Para. 71].
Regarding 17, Quennesson teaches wherein identifying the parameter associated with chat (social media engagement) related to the AV entity comprises identifying sentiment of the chat [Para. 73].
Regarding 19. Quennesson teaches wherein identifying the parameter associated with chat related to the AV entity comprises identifying topic of the chat [Para. 72].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quennesson (Pub. No. US 2018/0025078) in view of Dwyer et al. (Pub. 2015/0195406).
Regarding claim 13, Quennesson doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Dwyer teaches wherein using audio from the AV entity for identifying plural first candidate segments (call snippets) of the AV entity comprises identifying acoustic events (acoustic events) in the audio [Para. 159 and 154].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quennesson to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Dwyer; because the modification enables the system to real-time automated monitoring systems for monitoring and improving live communications, including by providing feedback on communications performance.
Regarding claim 14, Quennesson doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Dwyer teaches wherein using audio from the AV entity for identifying plural first candidate segments of the AV entity comprises identifying pitch and/or amplitude (volume) of at least one voice in the audio [Para. 154].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quennesson to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Dwyer; because the modification enables the system to real-time automated monitoring systems for monitoring and improving live communications, including by providing feedback on communications performance.
Regarding claim 15, Quennesson doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Dwyer teaches wherein using audio from the AV entity for identifying plural first candidate segments of the AV entity comprises identifying emotion (emotion score) in the audio [Para. 120].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quennesson to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Dwyer; because the modification enables the system to real-time automated monitoring systems for monitoring and improving live communications, including by providing feedback on communications performance.
Regarding 18, Quennesson doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Dwyer teaches wherein identifying the parameter associated with chat related to the AV entity comprises identifying emotion (emotional score) of the chat [Para. 120].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quennesson to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Dwyer; because the modification enables the system to real-time automated monitoring systems for monitoring and improving live communications, including by providing feedback on communications performance.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quennesson (Pub. No. US 2018/0025078) in view of IYER (Pub. No. US 2021/0201045).
Regarding 20, Quennesson doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, IYER teaches wherein identifying the parameter associated with chat related to the AV entity comprises identifying at least one grammatical category of at least one word in the chat [Para. 36].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quennesson to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by IYER; because the modification enables the system to receive real-time user’s reaction in order to improve user’s experience.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quennesson (Pub. No. US 2018/0025078) in view of Gunawardena (Pub. No. US 2021/0110166).
Regarding 21, Quennesson doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
However, Gunawardena teaches wherein identifying the parameter associated with chat related to the AV entity comprises identifying a summary of the chat [Para. 48, 49, 124 and 126].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Quennesson to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Gunawardena; because the modification enables the system automatically update all relevant information automatically for system improvement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-7 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights