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 .
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 October 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 23-26 are currently pending. In the Amendment filed 10 October 2025, claims 1, 13, 23 and 24 are amended, claims 4, 9, 15, 18, 21 and 22 are canceled and claims 25 and 26 are new.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 23 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8 recites “configured identify.” It appears each claim should recite “configured to identify.” The dependent claims are objected to on the same grounds since they incorporate the limitations of the dependent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one or more features” in lines 9-10. Lines 26 and 27 recite “the features.” It is unclear if the “one or more features” recited in lines 9-10 are the same features as those recited in lines 26 and 27. If they are the same, then lines 26 and 27 should recite “one or more features.” If they are not the same then “the features” lack antecedent basis. Claim 13 has the same deficiencies. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23-26 incorporate the deficiencies of the independent claims and therefore are objected on the same grounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previously presented rejections of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23 and 24 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112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps of independent claims 1 and 13 are: calculating a distribution of features of the multimedia file. Each independent claim generates a positive bias status in response to determining that a distribution of the features calculated from the multimedia file deviates more than a threshold deviation without first calculating a distribution. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23-26 incorporate the deficiencies of the independent claims and therefore are rejected on the same grounds.
35 USC § 101
It is noted that the memory of claim 1 is considered to represent the necessary hardware. Since the system comprises machine-readable instructions stored in a memory, the memory is considered to be part of the system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 1 recites a system comprising: machine-readable instructions stored in a memory that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: receiving, by an image processing module, a multimedia file having a metadata and a visual data and a text data, the multimedia file and the text data corresponding to a user; determining a reliability status of the multimedia file based on the multimedia file and the text data: extracting one or more keywords from the text data; recognizing, with the image processing module configured identify one or more features corresponding to the one or more keywords expressed in the text data, one or more features from the multimedia file; generating, with the image processing module, a text summary for the one or more features recognized from the multimedia file; and generating a positive reliability status based on a similarity of the text data and the text summary is within a predetermined range; determining a bias status of the user based on the multimedia file, the text data, or combinations thereof; generating a positive bias status in response to determining that a distribution of the features calculated from the multimedia file deviates more than a threshold deviation from a statistical distribution, wherein the features include objects, crowd size, gender, skin tone, facial features, or combinations thereof; generating a report comprising the reliability status of the multimedia file and the bias status of the user based on the multimedia file; and causing a user interface on an electronic display to display an icon that: when a cursor is positioned with the icon, one or more contextualizing multimedia objects are configured for display within the user interface.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of determining a reliability status of the multimedia file based on the multimedia file and the text data: extracting one or more keywords from the text data; recognizing, identify one or more features corresponding to the one or more keywords expressed in the text data, one or more features from the multimedia file; generating, a text summary for the one or more features recognized from the multimedia file; and generating a positive reliability status based on a similarity of the text data and the text summary is within a predetermined range; determining a bias status of the user based on the multimedia file, the text data, or combinations thereof; generating a positive bias status in response to determining that a distribution of the features calculated from the multimedia file deviates more than a threshold deviation from a statistical distribution, wherein the features include objects, crowd size, gender, skin tone, facial features, or combinations thereof; generating a report comprising the reliability status of the multimedia file and the bias status of the user based on the multimedia file, as drafted are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by “an image processing module” nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, a person can determine a reliability status of an image by looking at an image that has a text description written by someone else. They can select a keyword from the description, identify an object in the image based on that keyword and then generate a summary of the object. The person can then generate a positive reliability status by calculating the similarity of the description and the summary to a predetermined range. Next, the person can determine a positive bias status of the photo by comparing a distribution of features calculated from the image to a statistical distribution, wherein the features include objects, crowd size, gender, skin tone or facial features. A person can then generate a report on paper by writing the reliability status and the bias status. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements machine readable instructions, memory, a processor, an image processing module, an user interface and an electronic display. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of a multimedia file having a metadata, a visual data and a text data and the image processing module configured to identify one or more features corresponding to the one or more keywords expressed in the text data is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim also recites the additional elements of receiving a multimedia file having a metadata and a visual data and a text data, the multimedia file and the text data corresponding to a user and causing a user interface on an electronic display to display an icon that: when a cursor is positioned with the icon, one or more contextualizing multimedia objects are configured for display with the user interface. The additional elements are merely receiving data and displaying/outputting data, which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements machine readable instructions, memory, a processor, an image processing module, an user interface and an electronic display. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of a multimedia file having a metadata, a visual data and a text data and the image processing module configured to identify one or more features corresponding to the one or more keywords expressed in the text data is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim also recites the additional elements of receiving a multimedia file having a metadata and a visual data and a text data, the multimedia file and the text data corresponding to a user and causing a user interface on an electronic display to display an icon that: when a cursor is positioned with the icon, one or more contextualizing multimedia objects are configured for display with the user interface. The additional elements are merely receiving data and displaying/outputting data, which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of receiving or outputting/displaying data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, adding insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites a method comprising: receiving, by an image processing module, a multimedia file having a metadata and a visual data and a text data, the multimedia file and the text data corresponding to a user; determining a reliability status of the multimedia file based on the multimedia file and the text data: extracting one or more keywords from the text data; recognizing, with the image processing module configured identify one or more features corresponding to the one or more keywords expressed in the text data, one or more features from the multimedia file; generating, with the image processing module, a text summary for the one or more features recognized from the multimedia file; and generating a positive reliability status based on a similarity of the text data and the text summary is within a predetermined range; determining a bias status of the user based on the multimedia file, the text data, or combinations thereof; generating a positive bias status in response to determining that a distribution of the features calculated from the multimedia file deviates more than a threshold deviation from a statistical distribution; generating a report comprising the reliability status of the multimedia file and the bias status of the user based on the multimedia file; and causing a user interface on an electronic display to display an icon that: when a cursor is positioned with the icon, one or more contextualizing multimedia objects are configured for display within the user interface.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations of determining a reliability status of the multimedia file based on the multimedia file and the text data: extracting one or more keywords from the text data; recognizing, identify one or more features corresponding to the one or more keywords expressed in the text data, one or more features from the multimedia file; generating, a text summary for the one or more features recognized from the multimedia file; and generating a positive reliability status based on a similarity of the text data and the text summary is within a predetermined range; determining a bias status of the user based on the multimedia file, the text data, or combinations thereof; generating a positive bias status in response to determining that a distribution of the features calculated from the multimedia file deviates more than a threshold deviation from a statistical distribution; generating a report comprising the reliability status of the multimedia file and the bias status of the user based on the multimedia file, as drafted are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by “an image processing module” nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, a person can determine a reliability status of an image by looking at an image that has a text description written by someone else. They can select a keyword from the description, identify an object in the image based on that keyword and then generate a summary of the object. The person can then generate a positive reliability status by calculating the similarity of the description and the summary to a predetermined range. Next, the person can determine a positive bias status of the photo by comparing a distribution of features calculated from the image to a statistical distribution, wherein the features include objects, crowd size, gender, skin tone or facial features. A person can then generate a report on paper by writing the reliability status and the bias status. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements an image processing module, an user interface and an electronic display. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of a multimedia file having a metadata, a visual data and a text data and the image processing module configured to identify one or more features corresponding to the one or more keywords expressed in the text data is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim also recites the additional elements of receiving a multimedia file having a metadata and a visual data and a text data, the multimedia file and the text data corresponding to a user and causing a user interface on an electronic display to display an icon that: when a cursor is positioned with the icon, one or more contextualizing multimedia objects are configured for display with the user interface. The additional elements are merely receiving data and displaying/outputting data, which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements an image processing module, an user interface and an electronic display. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of a multimedia file having a metadata, a visual data and a text data and the image processing module configured to identify one or more features corresponding to the one or more keywords expressed in the text data is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim also recites the additional elements of receiving a multimedia file having a metadata and a visual data and a text data, the multimedia file and the text data corresponding to a user and causing a user interface on an electronic display to display an icon that: when a cursor is positioned with the icon, one or more contextualizing multimedia objects are configured for display with the user interface. The additional elements are merely receiving data and displaying/outputting data, which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of receiving or outputting/displaying data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, adding insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 8, 10, 14, 17 and 19 are each directed to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Each claim recites the additional element of a using a natural language processing module. The element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3, 5 and 7 are directed to the abstract idea of the independent claim. Each claim recites the additional limitations of generating a notice and providing for output the notice on an electronic display. The generation of a notice is directed to a mental process. The additional element of providing the notice for display is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 11 and 20 are directed to the abstract idea of the independent claim. Each claim recites the additional element of providing for output the multimedia file. The additional element of providing the notice for display is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of outputting/displaying data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 6, 12 and 16 are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. Each claim does not include any additional elements. Therefore, each claim does not include any additional elements to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 23 and 24 are directed to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claim recites the additional element of using an image processing module. The element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 25 and 26 are directed to the abstract idea of the independent claim. Each claim recites the additional element of retrieving a plurality of reference multimedia files. The additional element is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of retrieving data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. Adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23-26 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is US PGPub 2020/0202071 to Ghulati (hereafter Ghulati); 2016/0110433 to Sawhney et al (hereafter Sawhney); US PGPub 2023/0029934 to Kamon (hereafter Kamon); US PGPub 2021/0357591 to Campos Ortega et al (hereafter Campos); and US PGPub 2017/0132526 to Cohen et al.
Ghulati teaches receiving, by an image processing module [automated misleading content algorithm/detector] a multimedia file [content/input data] having a metadata [metadata] and a visual data [video content] and a text data [textual data], the multimedia file and the text data corresponding to a user (see [0008]; [0068]-[0075]; [0117] and [0161] – Receiving input data from a network of users, the input data comprising metadata, textual content and/or video content); determining a reliability status [agreeable content quality score] of the multimedia file based on the multimedia file, the text data, or combinations thereof (see [0124]-[0139]; [0140]; and Fig 4); determining a bias status [consistency with trusted sources score] of the user [author/source/original reporter] based on the multimedia file, the text data, or combinations thereof (see [0124]-[0139]; [0140]; and Fig 4); and generating a report comprising the reliability status of the multimedia file and the bias status of the user based on the multimedia file (see [0140] and Fig 4 – The system and method of this embodiment as described herein is operable to provide a user with an open, agreeable quality score for content, an example of which is shown in Fig 4. An agreeable content quality score may be provided along with data such as percentage of trusted sources, verified claims, false claims, as well as different sources investigated.); and when the cursor activates the icon, the report is configured for display within the user interface (see Fig 4; [0026];[0119] – An overlay is a popup graphic. In order for a pop-up graphic to be displayed it has to be activated.).
Sawhney teaches determining a bias status of the user based the multimedia file, the text data, or combinations thereof (see [0039]; [0095]-[0098] – Determining the trustworthiness of a source), determining the bias status comprising: identifying an event corresponding to the multimedia file based on the multimedia file, the metadata , the text data, or combinations thereof (see [0095], lines 6-9 and [0096] – The alignment module reviews a post on a social media site that states “Crowd of protestors outside of White House.”); retrieving a plurality of reference multimedia files corresponding to the event (see [0095], lines 9-13 and [0096] – The alignment module accesses the extraction and indexing module and looks for similarly timed images or videos at or around the White House and retrieves images.); recognizing features from the plurality of reference multimedia files and the multimedia file (see [0049]; [0087]; [0097]; [0098]; and [0101] – Feature extraction module); calculating, with the image processing module, a statistical distribution of the features of the plurality of reference multimedia files (see [0049]; [0059]; and [0086] – computing distributions of features); and generating a positive bias status in response to determining that a distribution of the features calculated from the multimedia file deviates from the statistical distribution, wherein the features include objects, crowd size, gender, skin tone facial features, or combinations thereof (see [0049]; [0059]; [0086]; [0087]; [0098]; [0110] – Trustworthiness may be enhanced or decreased if it is determined by the alignment module that some portions of the media were already found in prior media. At step 2012, as part of indexing the concepts for searchability, related concepts are grouped together and then aligned at step 2014. Alignment in this embodiment comprises comparing the various concepts extracted from the one or more unsynchronized data sources and determining how the concepts match against each other. At step 2016, the accuracy of various related concepts are determined, establishing a trustworthiness level to one or more data sources from which the concepts were extracted. A positive bias is construed to be analogous to a low trustworthiness.).
Kamon teaches calculating, with the image processing module, a statistical distribution of the features [feature amount distribution] of the plurality of reference multimedia files [first learning image group] (see [0063]); and generating a positive bias status [abnormal image] in response to determining that a distribution of the features calculated from the multimedia file deviates more than a threshold deviation from the statistical distribution [the difference calculated by the comparison exceeds a preset threshold value] (see [0063] - The parameters of the discriminator are fixed, intermediate feature amount distribution of the discriminator in a case where first learning data is input is calculated, and the above intermediate feature amount distribution is compared with an intermediate feature amount in a case where an input image is input to the discriminator, whereby the abnormality detection is performed. The input image is determined to be abnormal in a case where the difference calculated by the comparison exceeds a preset threshold value.)
Campos teaches analyzing posts including the further limitation of causing a user interface on an electronic display to display an icon [particular graphic] that: when a cursor is positioned with the icon [hovers a mouse icon], one or more contextualizing multimedia objects are configured for display within the user interface [additional data may be displayed] (see [0042]).
Cohen teaches in paragraph [0029], using a model to detect objects in an image and concepts related to the objects in order to automatically generate a caption for the object.
The prior art of record fails to explicitly teach the limitations found in each of the independent claims of determining a reliability status of the multimedia file based on the multimedia file and the text data; extracting one or more keywords from the text data; recognizing, with the image processing module configured identify one or more features corresponding to the one or more keywords expressed in the text data, one or more features from the multimedia file; generating, with the image processing module, a text summary for the one or more features recognized from the multimedia file; and generating a positive reliability status based on a similarity of the text data and the text summary is within a predetermined range in combination with the other claimed limitations.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with regards to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 12-13 of the arguments, the Applicant points to the Memo dated 8/4/2025. The Applicant points to the statement “On the other hand, a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s).” In context, this statement means that the claim has to recite at least one limitation that can be performed in the human mind for the claim to be considered to contain a “mental process.” This not does that mean that if the claim recites a generic computer process or component, such as a model or artificial intelligence, performing the process then it is not abstract. Those components are handled in Step 2a, Prong 2 and Step 2b. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Section III(C) states “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").” The Applicant further argues that “Claim limitations that encompass AI in a way that cannot be practically performed in the human mind do not fall within this grouping.” It is noted that the claim does not encompass AI in a manner which cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The claims are merely using an image processing module which is a generic computer component recited at a high level. Therefore, the claims as a whole are not directed to subject matter that is significantly more than an abstract idea.
With regards to the arguments concerning Step 2A, prong 1 on pages 15-16, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims do not recite a mental process. The limitations of determining a reliability status of the multimedia file based on the multimedia file and the text data: extracting one or more keywords from the text data; recognizing, identify one or more features corresponding to the one or more keywords expressed in the text data, one or more features from the multimedia file; generating, a text summary for the one or more features recognized from the multimedia file; and generating a positive reliability status based on a similarity of the text data and the text summary is within a predetermined range; determining a bias status of the user based on the multimedia file, the text data, or combinations thereof; generating a positive bias status in response to determining that a distribution of the features calculated from the multimedia file deviates more than a threshold deviation from a statistical distribution, wherein the features include objects, crowd size, gender, skin tone, facial features, or combinations thereof; and generating a report comprising the reliability status of the multimedia file and the bias status of the user based on the multimedia file, as drafted are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by “an image processing module” nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, a person can determine a reliability status of an image by looking at an image that has a text description written by someone else. They can select a keyword from the description, identify an object in the image based on that keyword and then generate a summary of the object. The person can then generate a positive reliability status by calculating the similarity of the description and the summary to a predetermined range. Next, the person can determine a positive bias status of the photo by comparing a distribution of features calculated from the image to a statistical distribution, wherein the features include objects, crowd size, gender, skin tone or facial features. A person can then generate a report on paper by writing the reliability status and the bias status. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
With regards to the arguments concerning the limitation “receiving, by an image processing module, a multimedia file having metadata,” this limitations is handled in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B as an additional element.
With regards to the arguments concerning determining a reliability status of the multimedia file which includes particular image processing processes, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A person can extract a keyword from text and then identify an object in an image based on that keyword and the context of the object. They can then generate their own summary based on the object and context. The original text and the summary can then be compared based on similarity to see if they are similar within a predetermined range.
Therefore, the amended clams as a whole do recite a mental process.
With regards to the arguments concerning Prong 2, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the Judicial Exception is integrated into a practical application through the limitation “causing a user interface on an electronic display to display an icon that: when a cursor is positioned with the icon, one or more contextualizing multimedia objects are configured for display within the user interface. This limitation is merely insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying information. The Applicant’s continue to argue “The report and one or more contextualizing multimedia objects are provided through the user interface to ameliorate any reliability and/or bias issues concerning the multimedia file.” It is noted that the claims no longer recite displaying the report. Also, the contextualizing multimedia objects have not been previously mentioned in the claim. They are not tied to the reliability or bias. Therefore, the limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regards to the arguments concerning Step 2B, the Examiner disagrees that the claims recite an “inventive concept.” It is noted that the Examiner has considered the claims as a whole. The claims merely state displaying a user icon and then displaying contextualizing multimedia objects. The user interface and the icon are recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, the Applicant has to pointed to the specification to provide what the improvement is and what exact claimed limitations provide the improvement.
Therefore, the rejections of the claims are maintained under 35 USC 101.
With regards to the Remarks concerning the prior art rejections, the Examiner agrees that the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach the newly added limitations.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY LOVEL WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2750. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on 571-270-1760. 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.
/KIMBERLY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165