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 .
Acknowledgement of Priority
The specification asserts the following:
“[0001] This patent application claims the benefit of provisional patent application 63/259,321 that was filed on July 08,2021 and entitled METHOD AND PROCESS FOR CHECKING MEDIA CONTENT VERACITY; this patent application also claims the benefit of provisional patent application 63/259,322 also filed on July 08, 2021 and is entitled METHOD AND PROCESS FOR VERIFYING VERACITY IN A CONTENT LICENSING REPOSITORY AND EXCHANGE PLATFORM;”
The effective filing date of 07/08/2021 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 07/01/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the claims filed on 07/01/2022.
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-7 and 12-15 are objected to.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 07/01/2022 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The Specification filed on 07/01/2022 is unacceptable for examination purposes due to the abstract being too long.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 and 12-15 are objected to.
Claims 1 and 5 are grammatically incorrect as written, reciting “key attributes segments”. Examiner believes Applicant meant “key attribute segments”, but correction must be made by the Applicant. See: “1. A method for media content analysis to identify media content segments that include embedded propaganda, the method comprising: receiving, at one of a plurality of client devices, a plurality of main media content; using Universal Resource Locators to retrieve a plurality of main media content; extracting a plurality of components from the main media content; determining key attributes segments required to retrieve similar media content; retrieving similar media content and extracting a plurality of components; preprocessing main and similar components into content segment vectors; applying content segment vectors to the veracity prediction engine to build a plurality of veracity indicators; identifying, from veracity indicators, the segment locations of one or more indications of embedded propaganda within the main media content; displaying main media content notification flags on a plurality of consumer client devices.”. See: “5. The method of claim 2, wherein, previously built veracity indicators and notification flags are displayed if a subset of previously processed media content key attributes segments match the same subset of newly retrieved media content key attribute segments for the current media content under analysis.”
Claim 2 is grammatically incorrect as written. Examiner believes the phrase “further comprises identifying” may have been omitted, but correction must be made by the Applicant. See: “2. The method of claim 1, wherein, identifying, from veracity indicators and element types, further comprises identifying the segment locations of one or more indications of embedded propaganda within the similar media content and displaying similar media content notifications on a plurality of consumer client devices.”
Claim 4 contains the sentence “Method of claim 1 to determine the main topic of the media content.” which appears to be a copy-and-paste error and should be removed. See: “4. The method of claim 2, wherein, the main and shared media content retrieved by URL pointers are used to extract the domain names where the content resides. Method of claim 1 to determine the main topic of the media content.”
Claim 12 contains incorrect and inconsistent capitalization of “True/False”. All instances should be written as “true/false”. Further, the claim is punctuated incorrectly because it is terminated with a semicolon rather than a period. See: “12. A method for fact checking main and similar media content, the method comprising; identifying, from veracity indicators, the segment locations of one or more indications of embedded propaganda within main or similar media content; performing, True/False segment extraction on identified content; applying, True/False segments to one or more fact checking ML models for further analysis; retrieving additional true/false analysis on extracted segments from a plurality of fact checking web-resources; storing the results from the fact checking models and web-resources into at least one fact check databases or data storage devices;”
Claim 14 is grammatically incorrect as written, reciting “assigning additional veracity ranking”. Examiner believes the word “an” may have been omitted, but correction must be made by the Applicant. See below for placement of the omitted word. See: “14. A method for indication of additional media content veracity by verification of signed license agreements between one or more of licensee's and licensors, the method comprising; use of a registry or block chain to track and validate legitimate content license agreements; assigning an additional veracity ranking for licensed media content over non-licensed media content; displaying notifications to media content consumers that the main media content has been acquired and published by a legal owner or license holder.”
The remaining claims in the range 1-7 and 12-15 are objected to by virtue of dependency.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “veracity prediction engine” in claims 1, 3, and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Paragraphs [0019] and [0027] are being used to interpret the veracity prediction engine.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Prior Art References
The short names that are used to identify the references of prior art in the analysis that follows are:
Short Name
Reference
Botnevik
Botnevik, B., Sakariassen, E. and Setty, V., 2020, July. Brenda: Browser extension for fake news detection. In Proceedings of the 43rd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval (pp. 2117-2120).
Galuten
US20180239832A1 METHOD FOR DETERMINING NEWS VERACITY
Zhao
Zhao, B., 2017. Web scraping. In Encyclopedia of big data (pp. 1-3). Springer, Cham.
Cao
Cao, T.D., 2019. Toward Automatic Fact-Checking of Statistic Claims (Doctoral dissertation, Université Paris Saclay (COmUE)).
Boroughf
Boroughf, B., 2015. The next great YouTube: improving content ID to Foster creativity, cooperation, and fair compensation. Alb. LJ Sci. & Tech., 25, p.95.
Prellwitz
Prellwitz, M. and Nelson, M.L., 2011, September. Music video redundancy and half-life in YouTube. In International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (pp. 143-150). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected as being indefinite under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the Applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 8 recites the limitation "the veracity prediction engine" (bolded below). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See: “1. A method for media content analysis to identify media content segments that include embedded propaganda, the method comprising: receiving, at one of a plurality of client devices, a plurality of main media content; using Universal Resource Locators to retrieve a plurality of main media content; extracting a plurality of components from the main media content; determining key attributes segments required to retrieve similar media content; retrieving similar media content and extracting a plurality of components; preprocessing main and similar components into content segment vectors; applying content segment vectors to the veracity prediction engine to build a plurality of veracity indicators; identifying, from veracity indicators, the segment locations of one or more indications of embedded propaganda within the main media content; displaying main media content notification flags on a plurality of consumer client devices.” See: “3. The method of claim 2, wherein, preprocessing the retrieved main and similar media content includes transforming a possible plurality of media types into images and textual content in preparation for analysis by the veracity prediction engine.” See: “8. A method for determining if reviewers' propaganda is more severe than that of other reviewers when reviewing main or similar media content, the method comprising; receiving, from one of a plurality of reviewer sources, a plurality of reviews from at least one media content reviewer; preprocessing components of the reviewer's comments into a plurality of content segment vectors; applying, for each individual reviewer source, content segment vectors to the veracity prediction engine.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation "shared media content" (bolded below). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner believes Applicant may have meant “similar media content” here which does not share the same antecedent basis issue as that of the original claim. See: “4. The method of claim 2, wherein, the main and shared media content retrieved by URL pointers are used to extract the domain names where the content resides.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation "if a subset of previously processed media content key attributes segments match the same subset of newly retrieved media content key attribute segments " (bolded below). It is unclear what “the same subset of newly retrieved media content” means. It is also unclear what it means for such a subset to “match” another subset. See: “5. The method of claim 2, wherein, previously built veracity indicators and notification flags are displayed if a subset of previously processed media content key attributes segments match the same subset of newly retrieved media content key attribute segments for the current media content under analysis.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "similar graph" (bolded below). The term “similar” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite when used to describe the graph of the claim. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See: “6. The method of claim 2, wherein, media consumer notifications are based on the classification of veracity indicators and are displayed as Link-Dots in a four- quadrant or similar graph.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the original content" (bolded below). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See: “7. The method of claim 2, wherein, time-line analysis displays a chronological order of changes that have been made between main and similar media content; changes from the original content notify media consumers if the original meaning of previously published content has changed.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the reviewer veracity ranking results" (bolded below). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See: “9. The method of claim 8, wherein, each reviewer is assigned a veracity ranking; storing the reviewer veracity ranking results into one or more reviewer bias/lean tables.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the veracity indicators" (bolded below). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 further recites “the reviewer content” (bolded below). It is unclear if this refers to the main or similar content. See: “10. The method of claim 8, wherein, Identifying, by analysis of the veracity indicators, the content segment location within the reviewer content where embedded propaganda exists; retrieving and displaying, to the media consumer, the segments of the reviewer media content that contain embedded propaganda.”
The remaining claims in the range 1-11 are objected to by virtue of dependency.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as outlined in the 2-step analyses for each claim that follows.
In reference to claim 1.
Step 1
Yes, a method - "1. A method for media content analysis to identify media content segments that include embedded propaganda, the method comprising:".
Step 2A Prong 1
- "extracting a plurality of components from the main media content; " which, but for the inclusion of generic computing equipment (i.e., “URL”, “client device”), is an evaluation that may be performed mentally by a human with the aid of pen and paper (refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) for more information about mental processes being performed on a computer).
- "determining key attributes segments required to retrieve similar media content; " which, but for the inclusion of generic computing equipment (i.e., “URL”, “client device”), is an evaluation that may be performed mentally by a human with the aid of pen and paper (refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) for more information about mental processes being performed on a computer).
- "preprocessing main and similar components into content segment vectors;" which, but for the inclusion of generic computing equipment (i.e., “URL”, “client device”), is an evaluation that may be performed mentally by a human with the aid of pen and paper (refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) for more information about mental processes being performed on a computer).
- "applying content segment vectors to the veracity prediction engine to build a plurality of veracity indicators; " which, but for the inclusion of generic computing equipment (i.e., “URL”, “client device”), is an evaluation that may be performed mentally by a human with the aid of pen and paper (refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) for more information about mental processes being performed on a computer).
- "identifying, from veracity indicators, the segment locations of one or more indications of embedded propaganda within the main media content; " which, but for the inclusion of generic computing equipment (i.e., “URL”, “client device”), is an evaluation that may be performed mentally by a human with the aid of pen and paper (refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) for more information about mental processes being performed on a computer).
Step 2A Prong 2
- “receiving, at one of a plurality of client devices, a plurality of main media content;” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering or outputting per MPEP2106.05(g).
- “using Universal Resource Locators to retrieve a plurality of main media content; ” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering or outputting per MPEP2106.05(g).
- “retrieving similar media content and extracting a plurality of components;” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering or outputting per MPEP2106.05(g).
- “displaying main media content notification flags on a plurality of consumer client devices.” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering or outputting per MPEP2106.05(g).
Step 2B
- “receiving, at one of a plurality of client devices, a plurality of main media content;” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP2106.05(g). This is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality as recognized by MPEP2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
- “using Universal Resource Locators to retrieve a plurality of main media content; ” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP2106.05(g). This is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality as recognized by MPEP2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
- “retrieving similar media content and extracting a plurality of components;” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP2106.05(g). This is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality as recognized by MPEP2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
- “displaying main media content notification flags on a plurality of consumer client devices.” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP2106.05(g). This is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality as recognized by MPEP2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.
Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In reference to claim 2.
Step 1
Yes, a method - "2. The method of claim 1,".
Step 2A Prong 1
- "wherein, identifying, from veracity indicators and element types, the segment locations of one or more indications of embedded propaganda within the similar media content and displaying similar media content notifications on a plurality of consumer client devices." which, but for the inclusion of generic computing equipment (i.e., “client devices”), is an evaluation that may be performed mentally by a human with the aid of pen and paper (refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) for more information about mental processes being performed on a computer).
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B
No further elements are recited. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In reference to claim 3.
Step 1
Yes, a method - "3. The method of claim 2,".
Step 2A Prong 1
The claim inherits the mental process recited by the parent claim it depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2
- “wherein, preprocessing the retrieved main and similar media content includes transforming a possible plurality of media types into images and textual content in preparation for analysis by the veracity prediction engine.” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering or outputting per MPEP2106.05(g).
Step 2B
- “wherein, preprocessing the retrieved main and similar media content includes transforming a possible plurality of media types into images and textual content in preparation for analysis by the veracity prediction engine.” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP2106.05(g). This is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality as recognized by MPEP2106.05(d)(II) v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document.
Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In reference to claim 4.
Step 1
Yes, a method - "4. The method of claim 2,".
Step 2A Prong 1
The claim inherits the mental process recited by the parent claim it depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2
- “wherein, the main and shared media content retrieved by URL pointers are used to extract the domain names where the content resides.” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering or outputting per MPEP2106.05(g).
Step 2B
- “wherein, the main and shared media content retrieved by URL pointers are used to extract the domain names where the content resides.” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP2106.05(g). This is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality as recognized by MPEP2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.
Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In reference to claim 5.
Step 1
Yes, a method - "5. The method of claim 2,".
Step 2A Prong 1
The claim inherits the mental process recited by the parent claim it depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2
- “wherein, previously built veracity indicators and notification flags are displayed if a subset of previously processed media content key attributes segments match the same subset of newly retrieved media content key attribute segments for the current media content under analysis.” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering or outputting per MPEP2106.05(g).
Step 2B
- “wherein, previously built veracity indicators and notification flags are displayed if a subset of previously processed media content key attributes segments match the same subset of newly retrieved media content key attribute segments for the current media content under analysis.” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP2106.05(g). This is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality as recognized by MPEP2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In reference to claim 6.
Step 1
Yes, a method - "6. The method of claim 2,".
Step 2A Prong 1
The claim inherits the mental process recited by the parent claim it depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2
- “wherein, media consumer notifications are based on the classification of veracity indicators and are displayed as Link-Dots in a four-quadrant or similar graph .” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering or outputting per MPEP2106.05(g).
Step 2B
- “wherein, media consumer notifications are based on the classification of veracity indicators and are displayed as Link-Dots in a four-quadrant or similar graph.” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP2106.05(g). This is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality as recognized by MPEP2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In reference to claim 7.
Step 1
Yes, a method - "7. The method of claim 2,".
Step 2A Prong 1
The claim inherits the mental process recited by the parent claim it depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2
- “wherein, time-line analysis displays a chronological order of changes that have been made between main and similar media content;” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering or outputting per MPEP2106.05(g).
- “changes from the original content notify media consumers if the original meaning of previously published content has changed.” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering or outputting per MPEP2106.05(g).
Step 2B
- “wherein, time-line analysis displays a chronological order of changes that have been made between main and similar media content;” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP2106.05(g). This is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality as recognized by MPEP2106.05(d)(II) iii. Electronic recordkeeping.
- “changes from the original content notify media consumers if the original meaning of previously published content has changed.” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP2106.05(g). This is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality as recognized by MPEP2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In reference to claim 8.
Step 1
Yes, a method - "8. A method for determining if reviewers' propaganda is more severe than that of other reviewers when reviewing main or similar media content, the method comprising;".
Step 2A Prong 1
- "preprocessing components of the reviewer's comments into a plurality of content segment vectors;" which is an evaluation that may be performed mentally by a human with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitation recites a mental process and therefore an abstract idea.
- "applying, for each individual reviewer source, content segment vectors to the veracity prediction engine." which, but for the inclusion of generic computing equipment (i.e., “veracity prediction engine”), is an evaluation that may be performed mentally by a human with the aid of pen and paper (refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) for more information about mental processes being performed on a computer).
Step 2A Prong 2
- “receiving, from one of a plurality of reviewer sources, a plurality of reviews from at least one media content reviewer;” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering or outputting per MPEP2106.05(g).
Step 2B
- “receiving, from one of a plurality of reviewer sources, a plurality of reviews from at least one media content reviewer;” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP2106.05(g). This is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality as recognized by MPEP2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In reference to claim 9.
Step 1
Yes, a method - "9. The method of claim 8,".
Step 2A Prong 1
- "wherein, each reviewer is assigned a veracity ranking;" which is an evaluation that may be performed mentally by a human with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitation recites a mental process and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
- “storing the reviewer veracity ranking results into one or more reviewer bias/lean tables.” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering or outputting per MPEP2106.05(g).
Step 2B
- “storing the reviewer veracity ranking results into one or more reviewer bias/lean tables.” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP2106.05(g). This is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality as recognized by MPEP2106.05(d)(II) iii. Electronic recordkeeping.
Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In reference to claim 10.
Step 1
Yes, a method - "10. The method of claim 8,".
Step 2A Prong 1
- "wherein, Identifying, by analysis of the veracity indicators, the content segment location within the reviewer content where embedded propaganda exists; " which is an evaluation that may be performed mentally by a human with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitation recites a mental process and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
- “retrieving and displaying, to the media consumer, the segments of the reviewer media content that contain embedded propaganda.” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering or outputting per MPEP2106.05(g).
Step 2B
- “retrieving and displaying, to the media consumer, the segments of the reviewer media content that contain embedded propaganda.” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP2106.05(g). This is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality as recognized by MPEP2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In reference to claim 11.
Step 1
Yes, a method - "11. The method of claim 9,".
Step 2A Prong 1
- "wherein, retrieving the reviewer ranking from the subscriber bias/lean table is used to determine if the reviewer's review is worthy of consumer notifications on the plurality of client devices." which is an evaluation that may be performed mentally by a human with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitation recites a mental process and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B
No further elements are recited. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In reference to claim 12.
Step 1
Yes, a method - "12. A method for fact checking main and similar media content, the method comprising;".
Step 2A Prong 1
- "identifying, from veracity indicators, the segment locations of one or more indications of embedded propaganda within main or similar media content;" which is an evaluation that may be performed mentally by a human with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitation recites a mental process and therefore an abstract idea.
- "performing, True/False segment extraction on identified content;" which is an evaluation that may be performed mentally by a human with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitation recites a mental process and therefore an abstract idea.
- "applying, True/False segments to one or more fact checking ML models for further analysis;" which is an evaluation that may be performed mentally by a human with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitation recites a mental process and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
- “retrieving additional true/false analysis on extracted segments from a plurality of fact checking web-resources;” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering or outputting per MPEP2106.05(g).
- “storing the results from the fact checking models and web-resources into at least one fact check databases or data storage devices; ” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering or outputting per MPEP2106.05(g).
Step 2B
- “retrieving additional true/false analysis on extracted segments from a plurality of fact checking web-resources;” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP2106.05(g). This is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality as recognized by MPEP2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
- “storing the results from the fact checking models and web-resources into at least one fact check databases or data storage devices; ” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP2106.05(g). This is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality as recognized by MPEP2106.05(d)(II) iii. Electronic recordkeeping.
Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In reference to claim 13.
Step 1
Yes, a method - "13. The method or claim 12, wherein,".
Step 2A Prong 1
- "stored fact-checked results are examined for valid assumptions and used to further train the ML based fact checking models." which is an evaluation that may be performed mentally by a human with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitation recites a mental process and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B
No further elements are recited. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In reference to claim 14.
Step 1
Yes, a method - "14. A method for indication of additional media content veracity by verification of signed license agreements between one or more of licensee's and licensors, the method comprising;".
Step 2A Prong 1
- "assigning additional veracity ranking for licensed media content over non- licensed media content;" which is an evaluation that may be performed mentally by a human with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitation recites a mental process and therefore an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
- “use of a registry or block chain to track and validate legitimate content license agreements;” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering or outputting per MPEP2106.05(g).
- “displaying notifications to media content consumers that the main media content has been acquired and published by a legal owner or license holder.” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity mere data gathering or outputting per MPEP2106.05(g).
Step 2B
- “use of a registry or block chain to track and validate legitimate content license agreements;” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP2106.05(g). This is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality as recognized by MPEP2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
- “displaying notifications to media content consumers that the main media content has been acquired and published by a legal owner or license holder.” which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP2106.05(g). This is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality as recognized by MPEP2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In reference to claim 15.
Step 1
Yes, a method - "15. The method of claim 14,".
Step 2A Prong 1
- "wherein, media content is purchased for ownership in lieu of being licensed." which only provides further details regarding the structure of the media content rights and thus is still a mental process based on the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B
No further elements are recited. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Botnevik.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Botnevik.
In reference to claim 1.
Botnevik teaches:
“1. A method for media content analysis to identify media content segments that include embedded propaganda, the method comprising:” (preamble)
“receiving, at one of a plurality of client devices, a plurality of main media content (Botnevik 2118, “When the user invokes the fact checking by clicking on the browser extension, JavaScript modules are used to retrieve information and details from the web pages and send the query to the server.”, The client device is the machine running the browser extension. The main media content is the web page that the browser extension processes.);”
“using Universal Resource Locators to retrieve a plurality of main media content (Botnevik 2118, “The
browser extension sends the URL or claim text chosen by the user to the server.”, The main media content is the web page that the browser extension processes. The web page is retrieved via URL.);
“extracting a plurality of components from the main media content (Botnevik 2118, “Before passing the text to the neural network for credibility prediction, we preprocess the text to tokenize, extract publication date, authors and summary”, The tokenized text, publication date, authors, and summary are all parts of the plurality of components extracted.);”
“determining key attributes segments required to retrieve similar media content (Botnevik 2118, “We use the claim text as the query without quotes.”, The claim text constitutes the key attribute segments. The claim text is executed as a Google query and the response to the query is the similar media content.);”
“retrieving similar media content (Botnevik 2118, “The server then analyzes the claim text first by retrieving relevant articles from the Web via search engines such as Google”) and extracting a plurality of components (Botnevik 2118, “Before passing the text to the neural network for credibility prediction, we preprocess the text to tokenize, extract publication date, authors and summary”, The tokenized text, publication date, authors, and summary are all parts of the plurality of components extracted.);”
“preprocessing main and similar components into content segment vectors (Botnevik 2118, “As shown in Figure 2, takes claim text and a evidence SADHAN document embeddings as input.”, The document embeddings that are input are the content segment vectors and are formed from both the main and similar components.);”
“applying content segment vectors to the veracity prediction engine to build a plurality of veracity indicators (Botnevik 2118, “As shown in Figure 2, takes claim text and a evidence SADHAN document embeddings as input.”, “A score indicating how credible the claim is based on the evidence found is sent back to the browser.”, The score indicating the claim credibility is the veracity inidicator.);”
PNG
media_image1.png
680
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“identifying, from veracity indicators, the segment locations of one or more indications of embedded propaganda within the main media content; displaying main media content notification flags on a plurality of consumer client devices (Botnevik Figure 3(d), The figure displays the claim, flags the credibility and shows supporting evidence).”
PNG
media_image2.png
470
615
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 2.
Botnevik teaches:
“2. The method of claim 1,” (preamble)
“wherein, identifying, from veracity indicators and element types, the segment locations of one or more indications of embedded propaganda within the similar media content and displaying similar media content notifications on a plurality of consumer client devices (Botnevik Figure 3(b), “Evidence Snippet”, “Credibility Output”, Evidence snippet highlights the embedded indications in the similar media content.).”
PNG
media_image3.png
624
925
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Motivation to combine Botnevik with Zhao.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine Botnevik and Zhao. Botnevik discloses a system comprising a browser extension and veracity modeling for fact checking web pages on the internet. Zhao discloses an overview of web scraping technology and practices. One would be motivated to combine these references because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the textual analysis of Botnevik by scraping additional content as discussed in Zhao. Further, MPEP 2143 sets forth the Supreme Court rationales for obviousness including: (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In reference to claim 4.
Botnevik teaches:
“4. The method of claim 2,” (preamble)
“wherein, the main and shared media content retrieved by URL pointers are used to extract the domain names where the content resides (Botnevik 2118, “Optionally, SADHAN can also take latent aspects such as ‘author’, ‘topic’ and the ‘domain’ etc into account to guide the attention.”).”
In reference to claim 5.
Botnevik teaches:
“5. The method of claim 2,” (preamble)
“wherein, previously built veracity indicators and notification flags are displayed if a subset of previously processed media content key attributes segments match the same subset of newly retrieved media content key attribute segments for the current media content under analysis (Botnevik Figure 3(b), “Evidence Snippet”).”
In reference to claim 6.
Botnevik teaches:
“6. The method of claim 2,” (preamble)
“wherein, media consumer notifications are based on the classification of veracity indicators and are displayed as Link-Dots in a four-quadrant or similar graph (Botnevik Figure 3(d), “Claim Score Threshold” graph, Under a broadest reasonable interpretation of “similar graph”, the scale line depicted in Figure 3(d) is one such graph.).”
In reference to claim 7.
Botnevik teaches:
“7. The method of claim 2,” (preamble)
“wherein, time-line analysis displays a chronological order of changes that have been made between main and similar media content; changes from the original content notify media consumers if the original meaning of previously published content has changed (Botnevik Figure 3(b), “Evidence Snippet”, It is unclear if the original content is referring the main media content, similar media content, or something else. The figure of Botnevik displays the original claim, a reliability score, and supporting evidence for the score. The display of said reliability score is being interpreted as notifying the consumer on some variation in meaning of the content.).”
Galuten.
Claims 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Galuten.
In reference to claim 8.
Galuten teaches:
“8. A method for determining if reviewers' propaganda is more severe than that of other reviewers when reviewing main or similar media content, the method comprising;” (preamble)
“receiving, from one of a plurality of reviewer sources, a plurality of reviews from at least one media content reviewer (Galuten [0058], “Journalist Veracity History (310) which includes a Cumulative Veracity History of the Journalist based on the reviews of that journalist for that area of expertise—all reviews weighted based on the expertise of the reviewers and their RA Scores.”);”
“preprocessing components of the reviewer's comments into a plurality of content segment vectors (Galuten [0022], “Embodiments of the present invention provide systems and methods for determining news veracity in a quantifiable way that allows for numerical analysis. Such determinations of news veracity may rely on combinations of natural language processing, artificial intelligence/machine learning, and recursive application of the evolving learning dataset.”, One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such numerical analysis would involve some sort of vectorization process to embed textual data, such as word2vec.);”
“applying, for each individual reviewer source, content segment vectors to the veracity prediction engine (Galuten [0026], “The veracity score is married with other data about the article, journalist or publication to create a Veracity Index Number (VIN) which can be used by publications, web sites or Internet browsers to indicate to consumers the veracity of a particular article, journalist, or publication.”).”
In reference to claim 9.
Galuten teaches:
“9. The method of claim 8,” (preamble)
“wherein, each reviewer is assigned a veracity ranking (Galuten [0047], “The system will transparently ensure that the members of the crowd are as unbiased and as objective as possible. Most of this will happen automatically as the more accurate reviewers rise in rankings—under the presumption that more accurate reviewers will be less prone to bias.”);”
“storing the reviewer veracity ranking results into one or more reviewer bias/lean tables (Galuten [0046], “Once the system has a group of reviewers, the system may analyze the VIN over time: for example, if a contingent of reviewers accurately predicts changes in the Japanese yen over a number of months, their accuracy on that topic may be judged statistically significant to the extent that it can be used to assess their weighting when creating MOR, JR and AP scores for news items on the economy.”, Analyzing the VIN over time would require storing the ranking).”
In reference to claim 11.
Gluten teaches:
“11. The method of claim 9,” (preamble)
“wherein, retrieving the reviewer ranking from the subscriber bias/lean table is used to determine if the reviewer's review is worthy of consumer notifications on the p