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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-15, 17, 19 and 20 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, 17, 19 and 20 are amended.
Claims 2, 16, and 18 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected.
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed October 20, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because the claims solve the problem of video processing efficiency by using an indicator. That is, Applicant asserts using the indicator saves the computational overhead required of using image processing to identify portions of the training video. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement, see pg. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, Examiner finds no evidence using an indicator prevents the need for complex image analysis techniques. Examiner finds the broadest reasonable interpretation of using the indicator includes labeling the video data (e.g., using user input).
Further, Applicant asserts the indicator is not merely a label because it would not specify portions of the video are customizable. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Examiner finds the broadest reasonable interpretation of using the indicator includes using a label (e.g., tags with data indicating portions of the video are customizable).
Second, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because the claims are analogous to Example 42. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Example 42 relates to standardizing data and the present claims do not perform any data standardization.
Further, Applicant asserts the claims require the use of advance video synthesis, facial recognition and voice synthesis. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because these concepts are only a general link field of use or technological environment (i.e., deepfake technology), see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, the limitations in the present claims are claimed too broadly to be more than a general link of the abstract idea (e.g., employee training) to a technology (i.e., deepfake videos).
Third, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because the transformation of the training video reflects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, see MPEP 2106.05(c). Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the present claims are recited too broadly to be more than a general link field of use or technological environment (i.e., deepfake technology), see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). Accordingly the 101 rejections are maintained, please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejectionist are withdrawn because the cited references do not teach various claimed limitations including at least “…selected training video including an indicator of a customizable portion of the selected training video that depicts a stock person element in the customizable portion…” and “…verifying that the other employee has consented to a likeness of the other employee being used in one or more of the plurality of training modules…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1 and 3-12 are directed to a process; and claims 13-15, 17, 19 and 20 are directed to a machine. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claims
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the independent claims recite an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized)1:
…storing content in a content repository, the content including a plurality of background images, a plurality of training videos, and a plurality of images and a plurality of audio of voices of employees of an organization that have consented to use the plurality of images and the plurality of audio in the plurality of training videos;
connecting a client device to a training platform that provides a plurality of training modules to the employees of the organization, the client device associated with an employee from the employees of the organization;
determining that the employee associated with the client device is required to complete a training module from the plurality of training modules:
customizing the training module for the employee by:
automatically selecting a background image for the training module from the stored plurality of background images, wherein the selected background image is selected based on a type of the organization;
selecting a training video for the training module from the plurality of videos stored in the content repository, the selected training video including an indicator of a customizable portion of the selected training video that depicts a stock person element in the customizable portion:
identifying that the selected video includes the indicator of the customizable portion for the selected video;
determining another employee from the employees of the organization that is a coworker of the employee within the organization responsive to identifying the indicator;
verifying that the other employee has consented to a likeness of the other employee being used in one or more of the plurality of training modules;
selecting an image of a face of the other employee from the plurality of images stored in the content repository and audio of a voice of the other employee from the plurality of audio stored in the content repository responsive to the verification; and
generating a training video for the training module by removing the stock person element from the customizable portion of the training video that corresponds to the identified indicator and replacing the stock person element with a non-authentic video likeness of the other employee, wherein the non-authentic video likeness of the other employee is generated dynamically based on the selected image of the face of the other employee and the selected audio of the voice of the other employee
presenting, to the client device, a user interface (UI) of the training module, the UI comprising: a first portion of the UI that includes the generated training video that comprises the non-authentic video likeness of the other employee a second portion of the UI that includes the selected background image, and a third portion of the UI that includes a plurality of training elements comprising text related to a training that is provided by the training module
wherein the first portion of the UI and the third portion of the UI are depicted as being overlayed over the second portion of the UI.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. These limitations encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. teaching, and following rules or instructions), because these limitations essentially encompass following rules for determining what information is to be provided while teaching. That is, these limitations include identifying training that needs to be completed, selecting formats and videos and people for completing the training, and presenting the training videos. Claims that encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people fall within the “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity”. Claims 1, 13, and 20 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The independent claims recite the additional elements (emphasized):
…storing content in a content repository, the content including a plurality of background images, a plurality of training videos, and a plurality of images and a plurality of audio of voices of employees of an organization that have consented to use the plurality of images and the plurality of audio in the plurality of training videos;
connecting a client device to a training platform that provides a plurality of training modules to the employees of the organization, the client device associated with an employee from the employees of the organization;
determining that the employee associated with the client device is required to complete a training module from the plurality of training modules:
customizing the training module for the employee by:
automatically selecting a background image for the training module from the stored plurality of background images, wherein the selected background image is selected based on a type of the organization;
selecting a training video for the training module from the plurality of videos stored in the content repository, the selected training video including an indicator of a customizable portion of the selected training video that depicts a stock person element in the customizable portion:
identifying that the selected video includes the indicator of the customizable portion for the selected video;
determining another employee from the employees of the organization that is a coworker of the employee within the organization responsive to identifying the indicator;
verifying that the other employee has consented to a likeness of the other employee being used in one or more of the plurality of training modules;
selecting an image of a face of the other employee from the plurality of images stored in the content repository and audio of a voice of the other employee from the plurality of audio stored in the content repository responsive to the verification; and
generating a training video for the training module by removing the stock person element from the customizable portion of the training video that corresponds to the identified indicator and replacing the stock person element with a non-authentic video likeness of the other employee, wherein the non-authentic video likeness of the other employee is generated dynamically based on the selected image of the face of the other employee and the selected audio of the voice of the other employee
presenting, to the client device, a user interface (UI) of the training module, the UI comprising: a first portion of the UI that includes the generated training video that comprises the non-authentic video likeness of the other employee a second portion of the UI that includes the selected background image, and a third portion of the UI that includes a plurality of training elements comprising text related to a training that is provided by the training module
wherein the first portion of the UI and the third portion of the UI are depicted as being overlayed over the second portion of the UI.
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of storing content and connecting a client device, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of storing data (e.g. storing videos and sending and receiving data over a network), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Second, the additional elements of using an indicator of the customizable portion a video, selecting an image of a face of another employee, and generating a training video by replacing a stock person with a non-authentic video likeness, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (deepfake videos) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Third, the additional elements of the user interface with various portions and performing steps automatically, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Fourth, the additional elements of the first and third portions being overlaid on the second portion, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic process of video transmission, see MPEP 2106.05(a) (discussing TLI Communications).
Fifth, claims 13 and 20 further recite a processor performing the various steps and a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions for performing the various steps, respectively. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claims 1, 13 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and a general link to a field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and a general link to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 13 and 20 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected for the following reasons.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, and 19 recites various details about what information is included in the custom organization content. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements all still only encompass generic computer functions of receiving and storing various types data (i.e. receiving and storing the various claimed types of custom organization content), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of an admin user interface for receiving an image that is a piece of custom organization content. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements all still only encompass generic computer functions of receiving various types data via a generic UI (i.e. receiving the various claimed types of custom organization content), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 6 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because classifying content to generate and provide a training module essentially encompass following rules for determining what information is to be provided while teaching.
Claim 6 further recites the additional elements of training and deploying a machine learning model to perform the steps. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because the machine learning is recited sufficiently generally and broadly such that it amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of a playback speed. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function (e.g. providing a fast-forward control for a video player).
Claim 10 recites the additional elements of authorizing and authenticating. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer functions of access control (e.g. requiring logins, passwords, etc.).
Claim 14 recites the additional elements of connecting with a payroll provider, verifying permissions of the payroll provider, and receiving content from the payroll provider. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements only encompass generic computer functions of access control (e.g. requiring logins, passwords, etc.) and receiving data (i.e. receiving user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 15 recites the additional elements of using machine learning. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the machine learning is claimed sufficiently broadly such that it encompasses a generic computer function.
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 BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
1 Examiner notes the exact language of claims 1, 13, and 20 differs but does not find these differences significantly alter the eligibility analyses and accordingly analyzes the claims concurrently here for the sake of brevity.