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 .
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process of comparing metadata of content and transmitting reference segments of the compared content without significantly more. Independent claims 10 and 18 add repairing and outputting the content item, which is similarly directed to a mental process.
Representative claim 1 recites:
“receiving, by a computing device, from a user device and based on a request for playback of a previously recorded content item at the user device, metadata associated with the previously recorded content item;
determining, by the computing device and based on a comparison between the metadata and reference metadata associated with a reference content item associated with the previously recorded content item, a transmission error in with a portion of the previously recorded content item at the user device;
determining, based on the transmission error in with the portion of the previously recorded content item, a reference segment of the reference content item that corresponds with the portion of the previously recorded content item; and
sending, by the computing device and to the user device, the reference segment of the reference content item that corresponds to the portion of the previously recorded content item.”
Claims 10 and 18 include largely similar subject matter, but include a “generating …. a repaired content item” step and a “causing … playback of the repaired content item” step.
These claims are directed to a mental process because the claims contain mental process steps of “determining… and based on a comparison between the metadata and reference metadata associated with a reference content item associated with the previously recorded content item, a transmission error in a portion of the previously recorded content item at the user device;” and “determining, based on the transmission error in the portion of the previously recorded content item, a reference segment of the reference content item that corresponds with the portion of the previously recorded content item.”
A human being equipped with a generic computer is capable of performing these functions.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 include additional elements in the form of the “receiving” and “sending” steps and “a user device” and “a computing device.” Claims 10 and 18 include additional elements in the form of the “generating .. a repaired content item” and “causing playback” of the repaired content item steps.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified in the claims do not appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, or providing a technological solution to a technological problem.
Regarding the additional elements of the claims, it is noted that receiving content is merely pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Sending content does not appear to improve the functioning of a computer or any technology or technical field because they involve the mere transmission of instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The recitation of generic hardware is little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Playback of content, or displaying content, is insignificant extra-solution activity and is well known (see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). Repairing content via replacing portions of the content, as a concept without additional claimed details regarding the repairing, was conventional in the art before the earliest filing date of the application and does not appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, or providing a technological solution to a known technological problem (see McCuller (US Pre-Grant Publication 2007/0168708) paragraph [0004], Ubukata (US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0173554) paragraphs [0004]-[0005], and Slinger (US Patent 6,466,999) 1:14-27, in which patching software is described as common). The remaining determining steps are mental process steps and cannot provide a practical application.
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Receiving data is merely pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Sending data is regarded as well understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The recitation of generic hardware is little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Playback of content, or displaying content, is insignificant extra-solution activity and is well known (see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). Repairing or patching data with a reference file was well understood, routine, and conventional in the art before the earliest filing date of Applicant’s invention (see McCuller (US Pre-Grant Publication 2007/0168708) paragraph [0004], Ubukata (US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0173554) paragraphs [0004]-[0005], and Slinger (US Patent 6,466,999) 1:14-27, in which patching software is described as common). Thus the claimed invention does not include additional elements that, in part or as a whole, appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-22 merely add additional steps that label and define specific data types and data analysis or define additional generic hardware. The claims do not appear to improve the processing of a computer or require the use of a specific machine, and thus do not appear to incorporate the mental process into a practical application. Additionally, none of the dependent claimed elements, in whole or in part, appear to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tredoux (US Pre-Grant Publication 2011/0099444) in view of Carson (US Patent 5,978,905), and further in view of Brown (US Pre-Grant Publication 2008/0189498).
As to claim 1, Tredoux teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, from a user device and based on a request for playback of a previously recorded content item at the user device, metadata associated with the previously recorded content item (see Tredoux paragraph [0042] and Figure 1. An electronic media player is a “user device.” As noted in paragraphs [0044]-[0046], digital content is extracted from memory and stored in the buffer for playback. As the digital content is read from the device, error correction may detect errors in the digital content, see [0046]. As noted in Figure 1 and paragraphs [0048]-[0049], the user device can connect over a network to a “virtual repair unit” and a “media repository.” The “virtual repair unit” is the claimed “computing device.” Paragraph [0054] and Figure 2 indicates that the virtual repair unit may be a separate server. As noted in paragraph [0049], the virtual repair unit may receive a request from a user. Paragraph [0051] indicates that the request includes a “media identifier” and a “segment identifier.” These are both elements of “metadata associated with the previously recorded content item”);
…
determining, based on [an error] with the portion of the previously recorded content item, a reference segment of the reference content item that corresponds with the portion of the previously recorded content item (see Tredoux paragraphs [0051] and [0058]. A reference content item is identifier); and
sending, by the computing device and to the user device, the reference segment of the reference content item that corresponds to the portion segment of the previously recorded content item (see Tredoux paragraphs [0051] and [0058]. The virtual repair unit (“computing device”) sends to the media player (“user device”) a readable copy of the identified segment from the media repository. Also see paragraphs [0060]-[0061] for a summary).
Tredoux does not explicitly teach:
determining, by the computing device and based on a comparison between the metadata and reference metadata associated with a reference content item associated with the previously recorded content item, a transmission error with a portion of the previously recorded content item at the user device;
Carson teaches:
determining, by the computing device and based on a comparison between the metadata and reference metadata associated with a reference content item associated with the previously recorded content item, an … error with a portion of the previously recorded content item at the user device (see 5:7-16 and 5:56-63. A source server receives a list of CRC block identifiers from a destination and compares them with a reference copy to determine what data to send to the destination);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Tredoux by the teachings of Carson because both references are directed towards synchronizing files that are different. Carson simply provides Tredoux an ability to perform additional error checks for content in a buffer, ensuring that a copy of media contained in the media player of Tredoux is accurate.
Brown teaches wherein the error is a transmission error (see Brown paragraph [0014]-[0015]. Brown verifies that data copied between an origin and a target has not suffered any transmission errors using CRC checks. Paragraph [0061] indicates that a repair program should be initiated if checksums do not match between the source and target files).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Tredoux by the teachings of Brown because both references are directed towards synchronizing files that are different between a source and a target. Brown simply provides Tredoux an ability to perform an additional error checks content at a destination, ensuring that a copy of media contained in the media player of Tredoux is accurate. Brown explicitly recognizes that errors may occur during transmission when synchronizing data from a source and a target (see Brown paragraph [0014]), an operation that occurs in both Tredoux and Carson.
As to claim 2, Tredoux as modified by Carson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the metadata comprises index data associated with the previously recorded content item (see Carson 5:18-45. The system has to determine what portions of data to analyze. The system receives location information indicating where a reference block may be found in a content item. Alternatively, see Tredoux paragraphs [0035] and [0058]), and
wherein the method further comprises determining, based on the index data, the reference segment of the reference content item (see Carson 5:18-45. Alternatively, see Tredoux paragraphs [0035] and [0058]).
As to claim 3, Tredoux as modified by Carson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the metadata comprises checksum data associated with the previously recorded content item (see Carson 5:17-28) and
wherein determining, based on the comparison between the metadata and the reference metadata associated with the reference content item associated with the previously recorded content item, the transmission error comprises determining, based on a comparison between the checksum data and reference checksum data associated with the reference content item associated with the previously recorded content item, a portion of the checksum data for the previously recorded content item is missing (see Carson 5:56-62, 6:7-13, 10:1-6, 11:35-59. Carson considers and compares checksum data to determine if any metadata is missing. See Brown paragraph [0014]-[0015] for the idea of a transmission error).
As to claim 4, Tredoux as modified by Carson teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the index data comprises:
a content identifier identifying the previously recorded content item (see Carson 5:17-45); and
a plurality of indexes, wherein each index of the plurality of indexes indicates an offset from a beginning of the previously recorded content item (see Carson 5:17-45).
As to claim 5, Tredoux as modified by Carson teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising sending, to the user device, at least a portion of the metadata associated with the previously recorded content item (see Carson 6:7-13).
As to claim 6, Tredoux as modified by Carson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user device comprises a digital video recorder (see Tredoux paragraph [0044]).
As to claim 7, Tredoux as modified by Carson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining, based on the comparison between the metadata and the reference metadata, the transmission error further comprises determining a mismatch between checksum data associated with the previously recorded content item and the reference checksum data associated with the reference content item (see Carson 10:1-6 and 11:35-59. See Brown paragraph [0014]-[0015] for the idea of a transmission error).
As to claim 8, Tredoux as modified by Carson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining, based on the comparison between the metadata and the reference metadata, the transmission error comprises determining an absence of at least a portion of checksum data associated with the previously recorded content item as compared to reference checksum data associated with the reference content item (see Carson 10:1-6 and 11:35-59. See Brown paragraph [0014]-[0015] for the idea of a transmission error).
As to claim 9, Tredoux as modified by Carson teaches determining, based on the portion of the previously recorded content item being missing, a segment of the previously recorded content item is missing (see Carson 5:56-62, 6:7-13; and
generating a repaired content item by adding the reference segment of the reference content item to the previously recorded content item (see Carson 5:56-62, 6:7-13).
As to claim 10, Tredoux teaches a method comprising:
Receiving, by a user device, a playback request for a previously recorded content item (see Tredoux paragraphs [0042] and [0044]-[0046] and the rejection of claim 1);
Sending, by the user device, to a computing device and based on the playback request for the previously recorded content item, metadata associated with the previously recorded content item (see Tredoux paragraphs [0048]-[0049], [0051], and [0054] and the rejection of claim 1);
receiving, by the user device … , a reference segment of the reference content item corresponding to a segment of a previously recorded content item that is missing (see Tredoux paragraphs [0048]-[0049], [0051], and [0054] and the rejection of claim 1);
generating, by the user device and based on replacing the previously recorded segment of the content item with the received reference segment of the reference content item, a repaired content item (see Tredoux paragraphs [0058] and [0061] for repairing the content item with the segment received from the server); and
causing, by the user device, playback of the repaired content item (see Tredoux paragraph [0061]. The player continues to process (or play) the media after it is repaired).
Tredoux does not explicitly teach:
Receiving, by the user device, and based on the metadata indicates a transmission error in the previously recorded content item, a reference segment of the reference content item corresponding to a segment of a previously recorded content item that is missing;
Carson teaches receiving, by the user device, and based on the metadata indicates an … error in the previously recorded content item, a reference segment of the reference content item corresponding to a segment of a previously recorded content item that is missing (see 3:57-4:9 and 5:56-6:13 and the rejection of claim 1. Carson shows wherein a user’s copy of a file may be missing updates from a source file. This may be identified based on a comparison of metadata);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Tredoux by the teachings of Carson because both references are directed towards synchronizing files that are different. Carson simply provides Tredoux an ability to perform additional error checks for content in a buffer, ensuring that a copy of media contained in the media player of Tredoux is accurate.
Brown teaches a transmission error (see paragraph [0014]-[0015]. Brown verifies that data copied between an origin and a target has not suffered any transmission errors using CRC checks. Paragraph [0061] indicates that a repair program should be initiated if checksums do not match between the source and target files).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Tredoux by the teachings of Brown because both references are directed towards synchronizing files that are different between a source and a target. Brown simply provides Tredoux an ability to perform an additional error checks content at a destination, ensuring that a copy of media contained in the media player of Tredoux is accurate. Brown explicitly recognizes that errors may occur during transmission when synchronizing data from a source and a target (see Brown paragraph [0014]), an operation that occurs in both Tredoux and Carson.
As to claim 13, Tredoux as modified by Carson teaches the method of claim 10,
Wherein the metadata comprises checksum data and index data (see Carson 5:17-45), the method further comprising:
receiving the reference metadata associated with the reference content item associated with the previously recorded content item (see Carson 5:56-6:13), wherein the reference content item comprises a verified copy of the previously recorded content item (see Carson 4:10-25).
As to claim 14, Tredoux as modified by Carson teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the reference metadata comprises reference index data comprising:
a content identifier identifying the reference content item (see Carson 5:17-45); and
a plurality of indexes, wherein each index of the plurality of indexes indicates an offset from a beginning of the reference content item (see Carson 5:17-45).
As to claim 15, Tredoux as modified by Carson teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the reference metadata comprises reference checksum data comprising:
a content checksum configured to verify data integrity of the reference content item (see Carson 5:17-45 and 10:1-6 and 11:35-59); and
a plurality of index checksums, wherein each index checksum of the plurality of index checksums verifies data integrity of content data beginning at a corresponding one index of a plurality of indexes and ending at a subsequent one index of the plurality of indexes (see Carson 5:17-45 and 10:1-6 and 11:35-59).
As to claim 16, Tredoux as modified by Carson teaches the method of claim 10 wherein generating the repaired content item comprises adding the reference segment of the reference content item to the previously recorded content item (see Tredoux paragraphs [0058] and [0061]. Alternatively, see Carson 6:7-13 and 6:25-42 for also repairing a content item).
As to claim 17, Tredoux as modified by Carson teaches the method of claim 10, wherein generating the repaired content item further comprises inserting another reference segment of the reference content item into the previously recorded content item (see Carson 3:57-4:9).
As to claim 18, Carson teaches a method comprising:
Receiving, by a user device, a playback request for a previously recorded content item (see Tredoux paragraphs [0042] and [0044]-[0046] and the rejection of claim 1);
sending, by the user device to a computing device and based on the playback request, metadata associated with the previously recorded content item (see Tredoux paragraphs [0048]-[0049], [0051], and [0054] and the rejection of claim 1);
receiving, by the user device, from the computing device and based on the metadata, reference metadata associated with a reference content item (see Tredoux paragraphs [0048]-[0049], [0051], and [0054] and the rejection of claim 1); determining, … an … error for a segment of the previously recorded content item (see Tredoux paragraphs [0048]-[0049], [0051], and [0054] and the rejection of claim 1);
receiving, by the user device and from the computing device and based on the … error for the previously recorded content item, a reference segment of the reference content item corresponding to a segment of the previously recorded content item associated with the … error (see Tredoux paragraphs [0048]-[0049], [0051], and [0054] and the rejection of claim 1);
generating, by the user device and based on the reference metadata and based on adding the received reference segment of the reference content item, a repaired content item (see Tredoux paragraphs [0058] and [0061] and the rejection of claim 10); and
causing, by the user device, playback of the repaired content item at the user device (see Tredoux paragraphs [0061] and the rejection of claim 10).
Tredoux does not teach:
determining, based on a comparison between the metadata and the reference metadata, a transmission error for a segment of the previously recorded content item;
receiving, by the user device and from the computing device and based on transmission error for the previously recorded content item, a reference segment of the reference content item corresponding to a segment of the previously recorded content item associated with the transmission error;
Carson teaches:
determining, based on a comparison between the metadata and the reference metadata, an … error for a segment of the previously recorded content item (see 3:57-4:9 and 5:56-6:13 and the rejection of claim 1. Carson shows wherein a user’s copy of a file may be missing updates from a source file. This may be identified based on a comparison of metadata);
receiving, by the user device and from the computing device and based on the … error for the previously recorded content item, a reference segment of the reference content item corresponding to a segment of the previously recorded content item associated with the transmission error (see 3:57-4:9 and 5:56-6:13 and the rejection of claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Tredoux by the teachings of Carson because both references are directed towards synchronizing files that are different. Carson simply provides Tredoux an ability to perform additional error checks for content in a buffer, ensuring that a copy of media contained in the media player of Tredoux is accurate.
Brown teaches wherein the error is a transmission error (see paragraph [0014]-[0015]. Brown verifies that data copied between an origin and a target has not suffered any transmission errors using CRC checks. Paragraph [0061] indicates that a repair program should be initiated if checksums do not match between the source and target files).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Tredoux by the teachings of Brown because both references are directed towards synchronizing files that are different between a source and a target. Brown simply provides Tredoux an ability to perform an additional error checks content at a destination, ensuring that a copy of media contained in the media player of Tredoux is accurate. Brown explicitly recognizes that errors may occur during transmission when synchronizing data from a source and a target (see Brown paragraph [0014]), an operation that occurs in both Tredoux and Carson.
As to claim 19, Tredoux as modified teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the user device comprises a digital video recorder (see Tredoux paragraph [0044]).
As to claim 20, Tredoux as modified by Carson teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the metadata comprises checksum data and index data (see Carson 5:17-45).
As to claim 21, Tredoux as modified by Carson teaches method of claim 20, wherein the index data comprises:
a content identifier identifying the previously recorded content item (see Carson 5:17-45); and
a plurality of indexes, wherein each index of the plurality of indexes indicates an offset from a beginning of previously recorded the content item (see Carson 5:17-45).
As to claim 22, Tredoux as modified by Carson teaches the method of claim 20, wherein the checksum data comprises:
a content checksum for verifying data integrity of the previously recorded content item (see Carson 5:17-45); and
a plurality of index checksums, wherein each index checksum of the plurality of index checksums verifies data integrity of content data (see Carson 5:7-45. Multiple blocks are considered, each with checksums).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tredoux (US Pre-Grant Publication 2011/0099444) in view of Carson (US Patent 5,978,905), in view of in view of Brown (US Pre-Grant Publication 2008/0189498), and further in view of Korotaev et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0308420).
As to claim 11, Carson teaches the method of claim 10.
Carson does not explicitly show further comprising:
generating repair metadata associated with the repaired content item; and
determining that at least a portion of the repair metadata matches at least a portion of reference metadata associated with the reference content item.
Korotaev teaches further comprising:
generating repair metadata associated with the repaired content item (see Korotaev paragraph [0052]. The validate and repair process of Figures 5A and 5B has concluded in paragraph [0051]. Paragraph [0052] then states that “this process is repeated for all portions of the backup data file. Thus, any previously repaired portions will be re-verified); and
determining that at least a portion of the repair metadata matches at least a portion of reference metadata associated with the reference content item (see Korotaev paragraphs [0051]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Carson by the teachings of Korotaev because both references are directed towards synchronizing files that are different. Korotaev will expand the usage of Carson to include repairing media files that have been damaged as well as synchronizing files. This will increase the utility of Carson for users wishing to repair files.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tredoux (US Pre-Grant Publication 2011/0099444) in view of Carson (US Patent 5,978,905) in view of Korotaev et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0308420), in view of in view of Brown (US Pre-Grant Publication 2008/0189498), and further in view of Umbehocker et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2016/0274967).
As to claim 12, Carson as modified teaches the method of claim 11.
Carson as modified does not explicitly teach:
wherein the reference metadata comprises reference checksum data and reference index data,
wherein the repair metadata comprises repair index data, and
wherein determining that the at least the portion of the repair metadata matches the at least the portion of the reference metadata comprises determining that the repair index data matches the reference index data.
Umbehocker teaches:
wherein the reference metadata comprises reference checksum data and reference index data (see Umbehocker paragraph [0020]-[0021]. The repair component considers a checksum and knows the location to write the data),
wherein the repair metadata comprises repair index data (see Umbehocker paragraphs [0020]-[0021]), and
wherein determining that the at least the portion of the repair metadata matches the at least the portion of the reference metadata comprises determining that the repair index data matches the reference index data (see Umbehocker paragraphs [0020]-[0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to have modified Carson by the teachings of Umbehocker because both references are directed towards repairing corrupted file data. Umbehocker merely adds additional metadata that may be used to find and repair broken data items, which will assist the system of Carson with ensuring that data is fixed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments made in view of the rejection under 35 USC 103:
Applicant argues that “The Patent Office fails to provide a proper motivation to combine Carson with reference to Tredoux. The Patent Office simply concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tredoux by the teachings of Carson because both references are directed to synchronizing files. Office Action, p. 8. The Patent Office alleges the motivation for such a combination would be "an ability to perform additional error checks for content in a buffer, ensuring that a copy of media contained in the media player of Tredoux is accurate." Id.”
Applicant adds “Applicant submits the Patent Office is creating a problem in the primary reference, Tredoux, in order to solve the problem with the secondary reference, Carson, that did not exist in the primary reference, but for the Patent Office wanting to modify the primary reference with the secondary reference in order to reject the claim. Tredoux teaches a method of error checking the content before it is placed into the buffer of the media player. As such, the content within the buffer is confirmed by Tredoux simultaneous download and error checking to be error-free within the buffer. Thus, Tredoux has no need for error checking the content in the buffer and combining the elements would only provide an unnecessary redundancy to the system of Tredoux. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Carson with that of Tredoux.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Carson simply provides Tredoux an ability to perform additional error checks for content in a buffer, ensuring that a copy of media contained in the media player of Tredoux is accurate. Nothing in either reference prohibits the idea of performing multiple error checking to ensure accuracy of transmission and content.
Response to Arguments made in view of the rejection under 35 USC 101:
Applicants argue that “The pending claims are patent-eligible because they recite a clear improvement to technology or to computer functionality under MPEP § 2106.06(b). The problems addressed by the claims are specifically rooted in computing technology. Applicant then cites portions of paragraphs [0025]-[0028] of the specification, then cites all of claim 1 and summarizes them. Applicant adds “As such, "when viewed as a whole," the claims recite "clear improvements to computer-related technology (e.g., the recording/downloading, repairing, and output of content) [that] do not need the full eligibility analysis" that, for example, enable users to more easily repair previously recorded content with errors at the time of playback of the recorded content, that was not contemplated or considered in the prior art. See MPEP § 2106.06(b) (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339). For at least these reasons, reversal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
While Examiner notes a problem in technology is described in the cited portions of the specification, Examiner notes that no improvement to a solution to the problem is described or claimed.
For example, the cited context from the specification – in which errors in transmission can cause errors in the recorded content item, wherein portions of the recorded content item are missing – are not claimed in independent claim 1 or 18. While independent claim 10 at least identifies a specific issue – a missing content item – and provides a solution to the issue – repairing the content item – nothing in the specification indicates that the method of “repairing” of a content item is an “improvement to a technological process.” Nothing in the cited portions of the specification appear to show a prior state of the art of repairing content that is improved upon using Applicant’s technique.
It is additionally noted that claim 18 has had all reference to “missing” content items removed, further rendering Applicant’s arguments inapplicable to claim 18.
Simply disclosing and claiming the problem and a solution at a high level of abstraction (and that only in claim 10) is not claiming “an improvement to technology or to computer functionality.” Additionally, as noted in the rejection above, the fundamental idea of repairing content in reference to a source copy of content was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art at the time of filing (see McCuller (US Pre-Grant Publication 2007/0168708) paragraph [0004], Ubukata (US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0173554) paragraphs [0004]-[0005], and Slinger (US Patent 6,466,999) 1:14-27, in which patching software is described as common). All claims 10 and 18 do is repair content. There is no claimed step describing an improvement to the repairing of content, nor has Applicant provided any citation in the specification showing such an improvement to methods of repairing content.
As noted elsewhere, claim 1 does not perform a repair step and thus does not show Applicant’s claimed solution at all, let alone approach the idea of an improvement to the solution of repairing content. Applicant is reminded that unclaimed features from the specification do not receive patentable weight until claimed.
Applicant argues that “The instant claims qualify as patent-eligible subject matter in that they are not directed to a judicial exception, and to the extent that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims each include additional limitations that are significantly more than the exception.”
Applicant elaborates, arguing that “The elements of pending claims cannot be performed in the human mind and to the extent that it could be performed in the human mind, the human mind is not equipped to perform the steps provided.”
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, “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").”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C 1-3 further elaborate on the idea that a claim may still be directed towards an abstract idea despite the use of a generic machine. Thus, though the claims may not be performed in a human mind, the determining steps may be performed by a human with a generic computer.
Applicant continues, arguing that “The claims describe a specific technical solution for repairing corrupted recorded content at the time of playback. Each of the first checksum and the plurality of index checksums can be generated using a particular checksum algorithm. For example, a cryptographic hash function can be used as the checksum algorithm. As a particular example, a message digest algorithm, such as the MD5 algorithm, can be used as the checksum algorithm. Specification, 63. The use of cryptographic hash functions to verify data integrity is a technological operation that cannot be performed in the human mind.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that there is no checksum algorithm claimed in the independent claims. It is noted that the MD5 algorithm exists nowhere in the claims. Applicant is reminded that unclaimed features from the specification receive no weight until placed within a claim.
The “checksum data” referred to in the claims is merely metadata. No manner of calculating the checksum is claimed nor provided in any independent or dependent claim. Rather, the checksum is claimed merely as metadata that is compared to identify an error. Comparing data is merely a data analysis. A human being equipped with a generic computer is capable of is capable of comparing data.
Applicant asserts that “The claimed methods provide a technological improvement rooted in computer technology. The recorded content may be repaired (e.g., by the user device) based on at least a portion of the reference recording of the content item. For example, the user device can insert (e.g., prepend, append, etc.) one or more segments of the reference recording to replace any missing segments of the recorded content. As another example, the user device can overwrite (e.g., replace) a damaged segment of the recorded content item with a corresponding segment of the reference recording of the content item. In this way, the user device can form a repaired content item. Specification, 6. This specific technical approach to repairing recorded content addresses the technological problem of transmission errors.”
As noted in previous responses, claim 1 does not have any claimed step directed towards repairing data. Neither claims 1 nor 18 contain any step directed towards replacing a damaged segment of a content item, let alone missing content. Additionally, no claim has steps directed towards prepending or appending segments to replace any missing segments. Applicant is reminded that claimed features from the specification receive no patentable weight until claimed.
Examiner notes that Applicant is not claiming nor describing an improved method of repairing data that is a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant is simply claiming that the idea of repairing data in general at a high level of abstraction as a solution to a technological problem in the art.
It is noted that the references cited in the rejection under 35 USC 101 all indicate that repairing and replacing data as a generic concept was well understood, routine, and conventional before the earliest filing date of the invention (see McCuller (US Pre-Grant Publication 2007/0168708) paragraph [0004], Ubukata (US Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0173554) paragraphs [0004]-[0005], and Slinger (US Patent 6,466,999) 1:14-27, in which patching software is described as common).
Applicant is requested to cite portions of the specification to support the idea that Applicant’s invention is an improvement to generic repair algorithms, rather than an invocation of generic technology in the field of endeavor.
Applicant argues that “The Patent Office's characterization that "a human being equipped with a generic computer is capable of performing these functions" is not the proper standard. The claims recite specific operations involving metadata comparison using checksums, transmission of reference segments between computing devices, and automated repair of recorded content none of which can practically be performed in the human mind.”
As noted above, the independent claims do not recite “recite specific operations involving metadata comparison using checksums” and claim 1 does not recited “automated repair of recorded content.”
Applicant is reminded that unclaimed features from the specification receive no patentable weight until claimed.
The comparison of checksums has been discussed above. No method of calculating checksums is claimed; rather, checksums only exist as data to be compared. Comparing data is merely a data analysis, and a mental process well within the capabilities of a human being equipped with a generic computer.
“Transmission of reference segments” was acknowledged to be an additional element beyond the mental process. However, this transmission step appears to be a generic transmission step using generic computing technology. While the data transmitted is a particular type of data, the act of transmission itself appears to be well-understood, routine, and conventional and to not integrate the mental process into a practical application. If this is incorrect, Applicant is requested to cite to any portion of the specification identifying the specific method of transmission itself – not simply the data being transmitted – along with an explanation of how that method of transmission, as claimed, integrates the mental process steps into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As noted in the preceding paragraphs and the rejection under 35 USC 101, a generic invocation of “repairing” content by replacing content does not provide a practical application to the mental process and is well understood, routine, and conventional in the art before Applicant’s earliest filing date.
Applicant is invited to cite any portion of the specification that describes how Applicant’s method of repair is an improvement to previous methods of repair in view of the cited language from the claims that encapsulate any such improvements.
Applicant argues that “the MPEP provides the bounds of mental processes along with the cases cited herein by Applicant. For example, the mental processes in the MPEP are those that “… are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas [and] the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.” Indeed, the MPEP provides examples of such mental processes as they “include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” The Patent Office does not suggest that the claim elements meet any of these categories and Applicant asserts that such is not the case.”
Examiner notes that the 35 USC 101 rejection did separate the claimed elements into data analysis (mental process) steps and steps that are additional elements beyond the mental process.
Applicant adds “Indeed, the Federal Circuit has held that it must be proffered how the human mind is equipped to perform the steps provided. SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[Defendant] submits that the asserted claims .. encompass steps that people can 'go through in their minds," allegedly confirming that they are directed to an abstract concept . .. [the Court] disagree[sl ... the human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors ... .") (emphasis added). However, the Patent Office has not provided any basis for how the human mind could achieve the elements of the pending claims.”
In response to this argument, as noted above, the rejection identified that the claims contain mental processes in the form of determination steps involving the comparison of metadata. Comparing metadata is a data analysis. A human being equipped with a generic computer is capable of comparing metadata.
Applicant adds “Indeed, the claims at issue here are more akin to the examples in the MPEP that do not recite mental processes. For example, "a claim to a specific data encryption method for computer communication involving a several-step manipulation of data;" and "a claim to a method for rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask" do not recite a mental process. MPEP § 2106(III)(A) (emphasis added).”
Examiner notes that Applicant does not claim “a specific data encryption method for computer communication involving a several-step manipulation of data,” nor “a claim to a method for rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask.”
Applicant is reminded that unclaimed features from the specification receive no patent weight until claimed.
Applicant argues that “As discussed above, the pending claims do not recite a judicial exception and are subject- matter eligible on that basis alone. However, even assuming, arguendo, that the pending claims do recite a judicial exception, they integrate such a judicial exception (the alleged abstract idea of a mental process) into a practical application, which is another reason why the pending claims are eligible under § 101.”
Applicant elaborates, arguing that “The claims recite a specific improvement to the technology of content recording and playback. For example, the actual transmission of the content item can be time shifted from the expected transmission (e.g., content scheduled to begin at 6:00 pm and end at 7:00 pm may not begin until 6:05 and end at 7:05 pm following a sporting event that ended later than expected), causing the recording to miss at least an ending portion of the content item. Specification, 25. The claimed methods solve this technical problem by enabling automatic detection and repair of damaged or missing segments at playback time.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that the claims contain data determination and data comparison steps. It is noted that data determination and data comparison steps are data analysis steps and are mental processes.
It is noted that the additional elements to the claims have been identified and analyzed in the rejection above.
It is noted that the claims do not contain any reference to time shifted content. Applicant is reminded that unclaimed features and conditions from the specification do not receive patentable weight until claimed. Applicant’s claimed problem of “[time-shifted broadcasts] causing the recording to miss at least an ending portion of the content item” is in no way present in the current claims. Because Applicant’s argued problem is not claimed in any way, Applicant’s solution to that problem is also not present.
Applicant argues that “Claim 1 recites "sending, by the computing device and to the user device, the reference segment of the reference content item that corresponds to the portion of the previously recorded content item." This is not mere data transmission but rather a targeted technical solution that sends only the specific segments needed to repair the recorded content. After determining that at least one segment of the recording is missing and/or damaged, the server can transmit, to the user device, the reference metadata and at least the segment of the reference recording corresponding to the damaged segment of the recording.”
If Applicant wishes to argue that the data transmission is a “targeted technical solution,” Applicant is requested to please identify in the specification the technical details regarding how the method of data transmission is not generic, rather than a generic method of transmission of particular types of data under particular conditions.
Additionally, Examiner notes that no claim requires a recognition that a segment is “damaged,” and claims 1 and 18 do not require a recognition that a segment is missing.
Applicant is reminded that unclaimed features from the specification receive no patentable weight until claimed.
Applicant argues that “The claims provide a concrete technical benefit by ensuring users can view complete content items despite transmission errors that occurred during recording. The recorded content may be repaired (e.g., by the user device) based on at least a portion of the reference recording of the content item. For example, the user device can insert (e.g., prepend, append, etc.) one or more segments of the reference recording to replace any missing segments of the recorded content. Specification, 8. This is a specific technological improvement, not merely using a computer to perform an abstract idea.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that claim 1 does not require repairing content. No claim requires any step to “insert (e.g., prepend, append, etc.) one or more segments of the reference recording to replace any missing segments of the recorded content.”
The conditions, actions, and results that leads to Applicant’s alleged “concrete technical benefit” is not claimed. Applicant is reminded that unclaimed features from the specification do not receive patentable weight until claimed.
Applicant adds “Claims 10 and 18 recite verification steps that further demonstrate the technical nature of the claimed methods. The user device can compare the metadata describing the repaired content item to metadata describing the reference recording of the content item received from the server. If the user device determines that the metadata describing the repaired content item matches the metadata describing the reference recording of the content item, the user device can cause display (e.g., playback, rendering, etc.) of the repaired content item. This verification ensures data integrity before playback, which is a technical function.”
In response to this argument, Applicant’s claimed “verification” is merely a set of data comparisons. Comparing data is a data analysis and a mental process.
Applicant argues that “The Patent Office's characterization of the "repairing" step as conventional based on software patching references is inapposite. The claims are not directed to generic software patching but to a specific technical solution for repairing recorded content items that have transmission errors. If the content item recorded by the user device is found to be missing one or more segments, the user device can insert (e.g., append, prepend, etc.) one or more segments of the reference recording of the content item into the content item recorded by the user device. Specification, 79. This targeted repair of recorded broadcast content based on metadata comparison is distinct from general software patching.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that neither claim 1 nor 18 discuss “missing one or more segments,” and no claim requires that “the user device can insert (e.g., append, prepend, etc.) one or more segments of the reference recording of the content item into the content item recorded by the user device.”
Additionally, the repair steps are claimed at a high level of abstraction. Where a repair step is required (only in claims 10 and 18), no details are given regarding the repair step. It is merely a “repair” in the most generic sense. As described in the rejection above, repairing data is an additional element beyond the mental process. However, such generic repairing was well known in the art of record before the earliest filing date of the invention.
Applicant is reminded that unclaimed limitations from the specification – such as any specific repair steps - receive no patentable weight until claimed.
Applicant argues that “The Patent Office further asserts that the claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant respectfully disagrees.” Applicant then lists the receiving and determining step of the independent claims.”
Applicant adds “All of these elements have not been shown in the prior art, and the MPEP provides, "[i]f the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field," the claim is favorable to patent eligibility. Id., para. 2. In addition, the Patent Office has not established that these elements are well-understood, routine or conventional. For example, the MPEP provides that even "[a]n additional element ... that is known in the art can still be unconventional or non-routine." MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I)(1). Indeed, the Office Action must make a factual determination to support that those additional elements are "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I)(2). And, "[e]ven if one or more additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity when considered individually, the combination of additional elements may [still] amount to an inventive concept." MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I)(3).”
In response to this argument, it is noted that each of these elements have been shown in the prior art (see the rejection under 35 USC 103 above).
Additionally, data determination steps are data analysis steps and are mental process steps, not additional elements beyond the mental process.
The identified additional elements of the claims have been addressed in the rejection above.
Applicant argues that “The Patent Office has not described why these elements are "well-understood, routine, [or] conventional" at the time the application was filed. Applicant asserts that these elements are not "well-understood, routine, [or] conventional" and therefore recites elements that are significantly more than the alleged abstract idea of a mental process. For at least these reasons, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is respectfully requested.”
In response to this argument, the additional elements of the mental process have been established as well-understood, routine, or conventional in view of citations to the MPEP and in view of the cited examples which explicitly indicate that generic repairing of content is well-known in the art before the earliest filing date of the application.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES D ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5:30 EST.
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 at 5712701760. 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.
/CHARLES D ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights