DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is responsive to the amendments and remarks received on November 20, 2025.
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, 2, 4-9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
At step 1, claim 1 (exemplary) is directed to a method, which is a statutory category.
At step 2A prong I, claim 1 recites the following limitations, which comprise an abstract idea:
accepting an audio file precursor package composed of at least one schema element: a substantially-complete audio digital media file having an auditory period;
generating one or more concepts associated with the audio digital media file by analyzing the audio digital media file;
determining a quantity of master images that can be synthesized with the audio digital media file based on a duration of the audio digital media file;
acquiring the following scoured elements: an ad image, a Wide Area Network ("WAN") resource landing page, and an advertiser domain WAN resource;
generating a slate comprising the determined quantity of master images logically related to the advertiser domain WAN resource and generated based on the generated concepts, adapted to be visible for the auditory period having an overlay of the ad image and a Quick Response ("QR") code adapted to direct a user to the landing page, wherein the master images comprise at least an animated master image created using metadata associated with the audio file precursor package.
These limitations recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities because the steps are directed to creating an advertisement, i.e. advertising, marketing, and sales behaviors. Additionally, the steps above constitute a Mental Process, as the steps of receiving information and generating advertising materials based on the received information can practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. As the steps are currently claimed, a person could receive audio data, listen to it, determine what it is about, choose a number of image frames to accompany it, create the images, include the necessary information (landing page, QR code) on the images, and then assemble the images into a slate to meet the requirements of the claim, without using any additional technologies.
At step 2A prong II, there are no additional elements claimed. The method steps are completed without any technological elements, hence the identification of a Mental Process abstract idea. As there are no additional elements claimed, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
At step 2B, the additional elements are analyzed again. However, because there are no additional elements, the claim is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, independent claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claim 11 is analyzed using the same rationale as above.
Dependent claims 2, 4-9, and 12-17 only further limit the abstract idea, and do not include any additional elements. Therefore, the dependent claims are also ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lax (US 2013/0254802) in view of Annamalai (US 2016/0078335), further in view of Murray (US 2009/0307207).
With reference to claim 1, Lax teaches a method for manufacturing a synthetic audiovisual work for an entity, comprising:
accepting an audio file precursor package composed of at least one schema element: a substantially-complete audio digital media file having an auditory period (see paragraphs 23-24 – retrieve the requested content, including audio file);
determining an image that can be synthesized with the audio digital media file (see paragraph 40 – image ads, audio ads, combining one or more of any such components);
generating one or more concepts associated with the audio digital media file by analyzing the audio digital media file (see paragraphs 34-35 – speech to text module identifies speech in an audio file, determines the subject matter of the audio);
acquiring the following scoured elements: an ad image (see paragraphs 40-41 – transmit select advertisements, i.e. image ads), a Wide Area Network ("WAN") resource landing page (see paragraph 51 – webpage), and an advertiser domain WAN resource (see paragraph 17 – hyperlinks, URL);
generating a slate comprising the master image logically related to the advertiser domain WAN resource and generated based on the generated concepts, adapted to be visible for the auditory period having an overlay of the ad image, wherein the master images comprise at least an animated master image created using metadata associated with the audio file precursor package (see paragraph 60, display advertisements targeted to audio-only content, see paragraph 70, overlay ads, see paragraph 21, animated images, and see paragraph 36, metadata used for context of the audio file).
Lax fails to teach a Quick Response ("QR") code adapted to direct a user to the landing page.
Annamalai teaches a Quick Response ("QR") code adapted to direct a user to the landing page (see paragraph 24 –promulgating the URL of the website of a company in the form of a QR code combined with a base image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the QR code directing a user to a webpage related to the ad, as taught by Annamalai, with the generated ad images of Lax, as encourage or aid consumers to buy advertisers’ products and to increase conversion rates (see Annamalai, paragraph 6).
Lax in view of Annamalai fails to teach determining a quantity of master images that can be synthesized with the audio digital media file based on a duration of the audio digital media file.
Murray teaches determining a quantity of master images that can be synthesized with the audio digital media file based on a duration of the audio digital media file (see paragraph 78 – video file made up of frames, i.e. individual master images, played at a certain rate alongside the audio file. Based on the frame rate and length of the audio file, the number of frames is determined).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the determining step of Murray with the ad generation of Lax and Annamalai to ensure that the image data appropriately matches up with the audio data and provides content that is interesting and engaging to the consumer, thus improving user experience, as was old and well-known at the time of filing.
With reference to claim 2, Lax, Annamalai, and Murray teach all that is required with reference to claim 1, and Lax further teaches accepting a file precursor package having an auditory transcript textualizing the audio digital media file (see paragraph 36 – captions, subtitles).
With reference to claim 4, Lax, Annamalai, and Murray teach all that is required with reference to claim 2, and Lax further teaches accepting a file precursor package having the determined quantity of master images (see paragraph 43 – advertisement repositories 214 for selecting ads, i.e. master images).
With reference to claim 5, Lax, Annamalai, and Murray teach all that is required with reference to claim 1, and Lax further teaches compiling an auditory transcript textualizing the audio digital media file (see paragraph 36 – captions, subtitles).
With reference to claim 6, Lax, Annamalai, and Murray teach all that is required with reference to claim 2, and Lax further teaches acquiring the determined quantity of master images selected in reference to the auditory transcript (see paragraphs 36 and 38 – the auditory metadata is used to select ads, and candidate ads, i.e. master images, are acquired to accompany the audio data).
With reference to claim 7, Lax, Annamalai, and Murray teach all that is required with reference to claim 1, and Lax further teaches accepting a file precursor package having an entity category contextualizing a commercial sector of the entity (see paragraph 45 – information about the videos in the video repository); and
acquiring the determined quantity of master images selected in reference to the entity category (see paragraph 69 – classifying video data into channels or play list categories to determine relevance to ads).
With reference to claim 9, Lax, Annamalai, and Murray teach all that is required with reference to claim 1, and Murray further teaches generating the slate comprising the determined quantity of master images logically related to the advertiser domain WAN resource and sequentially arrayed thereon based on a time-association with an auditory transcript textualizing the audio digital media file (see paragraph 78 – the relevant image frames are associated with the audio content to play at times where the content of the image matches the content of the audio, and to transition to different images when the audio content transitions to a different context).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
Claims 8 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lax (US 2013/0254802) in view of Annamalai (US 2016/0078335), further in view of Murray (US 2009/0307207), and further in view of Klais (US 2014/0129733).
With reference to claim 8, Lax, Annamalai, and Murray teach all that is required with reference to claim 1, but fail to teach replacing at least one of the WAN resource landing page and the advertiser domain WAN resource and including the WAN resource landing page and the advertiser domain WAN resource with shortened uniform resource locator prior to the generating.
Klais teaches replacing at least one of the WAN resource landing page and the advertiser domain WAN resource and including the WAN resource landing page and the advertiser domain WAN resource with shortened uniform resource locator prior to the generating (see paragraph 38, using shortened URL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combined the shortened URL of Klais with the inclusion of regular URL information as taught by the combination of Lax, Annamalai, and Murray, in order to make the URLs more concise and improve the ease of use/user experience.
With reference to claim 11, Lax teaches a method for creating a synthetic audio-visual work, comprising:
acquiring an audio file precursor package, comprising an audio digital media file, composed of advertising material having an auditory period, from a dedicated advertising work database bearing metadata concerning the advertising material (see paragraphs 23-24 – retrieve the requested content, including audio file, and see paragraph 14 – advertising repositories, and see paragraph 36 – metadata);
generating one or more concepts associated with the audio digital media file by analyzing the advertising material (see paragraphs 34-35 – speech to text module identifies speech in an audio file, determines the subject matter of the audio);
determining an image that can be synthesized with the advertising material (see paragraph 40 – image ads, audio ads, combining one or more of any such components);
generating the determined quantity of ad images logically related to the advertising material based on at least one of the following sources: (i) the file precursor package and (ii) a logical scour of a WAN based on the metadata (see paragraphs 40-41 – transmit select advertisements, i.e. image ads, see paragraph 51 – webpage);
generating a first audiovisual work product composed of a first slate comprising the ad image adapted to be visible for the auditory period having an overlay of an image adapted to direct a user to the landing page, wherein the ad images comprise at least an animated ad image created using the metadata concerning the advertising material (see paragraph 60, display advertisements targeted to audio-only content, see paragraph 70, overlay ads, see paragraph 21, animated images, and see paragraph 36, metadata used for context of the audio file).
Lax fails to teach a functional image adapted to direct a user to the landing page.
Annamalai teaches a functional image adapted to direct a user to the landing page (see paragraph 24 –promulgating the URL of the website of a company in the form of a QR code combined with a base image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the QR code (functional image) directing a user to a webpage related to the ad, as taught by Annamalai, with the generated ad images of Lax, as encourage or aid consumers to buy advertisers’ products and to increase conversion rates (see Annamalai, paragraph 6).
Lax in view of Annamalai fails to teach determining a quantity of ad images that can be synthesized with the advertising material based on a length of the auditory period.
Murray teaches determining a quantity of ad images that can be synthesized with the advertising material based on a length of the auditory period (see paragraph 78 – video file made up of frames, i.e. individual ad images, played at a certain rate alongside the audio file. Based on the frame rate and length of the audio file, the number of frames is determined).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the determining step of Murray with the ad generation of Lax and Annamalai to ensure that the image data appropriately matches up with the audio data and provides content that is interesting and engaging to the consumer, thus improving user experience, as was old and well-known at the time of filing.
Lax, Annamalai, and Murray fail to teach choosing an advertiser uniform resource locator (url) as a landing page logically related to the advertising material from at least one of the following sources: (i) the file precursor package and (ii) the logical scour of the WAN based on the metadata.
Klais teaches choosing an advertiser uniform resource locator (url) as a landing page logically related to the advertising material from at least one of the following sources: (i) the file precursor package and (ii) the logical scour of the WAN based on the metadata (see paragraph 38 –URL mapping scheme).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Lax, Annamalai, and Murray to include the selection of a url as a landing page as taught by Klais, since Lax discusses making content accessible through a known URL (see paragraph 22), and in order to collect information about website traffic and analytic information as taught by Klais (see paragraph 38).
With reference to claim 12, Lax, Annamalai, Murray, and Klais teach all that is required with reference to claim 11, and Murray further teaches wherein generating the first audiovisual work comprises generating a sequential display of the determined quantity of ad images (see paragraph 78 – the relevant image frames are associated with the audio content to play at times where the content of the image matches the content of the audio, and to transition to different images when the audio content transitions to a different context).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
With reference to claim 13, Lax, Annamalai, Murray, and Klais teach all that is required with reference to claim 11, and Lax further teaches that the determined quantity of ad images include a video file (see paragraph 40 – video ads).
With reference to claim 14, Lax, Annamalai, Murray, and Klais teach all that is required with reference to claim 11, and Lax further teaches generating a second ad image logically related to the advertising material based on at least one of the following sources: (i) the file precursor package and (ii) the logical scour of the WAN based on the metadata (see paragraphs 40-41 – transmit select advertisements, i.e. image ads, see paragraph 51 – webpage).
Murray further teaches generating a second audiovisual work product composed of a second slate comprising the second ad image adapted to be visible for the auditory period (see paragraph 78 – the relevant image frames are associated with the audio content to play at times where the content of the image matches the content of the audio, and to transition to different images when the audio content transitions to a different context).
Combined under the same rational as above.
With reference to claim 15, Lax, Annamalai, Murray, and Klais teach all that is required with reference to claim 14, and Lax further teaches having an overlay of a functional image (see paragraph 70 – overlay ads).
Klais further teaches adapted to direct the user to a secondary-landing page differing from the landing page (see paragraph 9 – one or more destination landing pages).
Combined under the same rationale as above.
With reference to claim 16, Lax, Annamalai, Murray, and Klais teach all that is required with reference to claim 15, and Lax further teaches communicating to a prospective owner of the audio digital file the first audiovisual work and the second audiovisual work (see paragraph 98 – the selected advertisements are transmitted for presentation).
With reference to claim 17, Lax, Annamalai, Murray, and Klais teach all that is required with reference to claim 11, and Lax further teaches communicating to a prospective owner of the audio digital file the first audiovisual work (see paragraph 98 – the selected advertisements are transmitted for presentation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible in view of 35 USC 101. Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. On page 11, applicant contends that the claims are directed to a computational process of generating a synthetic audiovisual work. However, nothing in the claim outlines a computational process. Rather, as pointed out above in the 101 rejection, these steps could be carried out in the human mind or with pen and paper. The use of a computer to compile the audio and visual components, which is not directly claimed, would still only be considered an additional element that would be a generic computer, but since the claim is not directed to a computational process, this argument is moot. Further, because the overall process is directed to creating a more effective advertisement, the claims are directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, in that the generation of an advertisement that is more likely to be effective is an abstract concept. As noted above, the claims are also directed to a Mental Process. Therefore, the claims do recite abstract ideas.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite an integration into a practical application. On pages 13-14, applicant argues that the analysis of elements as generic computing components applies the incorrect standard. However, in the above 101 rejection, there are no additional elements identified in the claims. Therefore this argument is moot. Applicant further argues on page 14 that the additional elements of analyzing audio, acquiring scoured elements, generating a slate, and embedding images are more than generic computing functions. However, those elements are not considered additional, as they are part of the abstract idea. Further, none of the claims recite the term “embedding.” Applicant further argues on pages 15-17 that the specification supports that the current method is an improvement in technology. However, nowhere does applicant point out anything from the specification outlining a technological problem and solution that would support this contention.
Applicant further argues that the claims are significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant states on page 18 that the claims operate in a non-conventional and non-generic way to analyze, acquire, generate, and embed. However, there is nothing specifically pointed out that is non-conventional or non-generic. As there were no additional elements identified in the 101 rejection above, it is unclear what the applicant believes is unconventional or non-generic, and therefore this argument is moot.
In light of the new prior art rejection in view of Murray above, the 103 arguments are moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ILANA L SPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7537. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/ILANA L SPAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622