DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 17/994,463 filed on November 28, 2022 in which claims 1-26 are presented for examination.
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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is also objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 13 is blank.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are:
“key moments machine learning module” in Claims 1, 3, 9, 14, 16, and 22.
“match detector module” in Claims 1, 6, 10, 14, 19, and 23.
“key signals detector module” in Claims 1, 2, 14, and 15.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, the claims recite the limitations “key moments machine learning module”, “match detector module”, and “key signals detector module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, “aspects of the present invention may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment (including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.) or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects that may all generally be referred to herein as a . . . module or system” (Pg. 5-6, Para. 5-1) (internal quotation marks omitted) is the only recitation of structure, material, or acts to the function applicable to the above limitations. Even assuming the modules are hardware, there are no specific hardware components associated with the modules. As a result, the scope of the claimed elements is not clear. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claims, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 15-16, 19, and 22-23, the claims recite at least one of the limitations “key moments machine learning module”, “match detector module”, and “key signals detector module”, which as discussed above, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, as elaborated above, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant may amend or respond in the manner outlined in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Additionally, the claims are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected claim.
Regarding Claims 4-5, 7-8, 11-13, 17-18, 20-21 and 24-26, the claims are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected claim.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 is a machine claim. Therefore, Claims 1-13 are directed to a statutory category of eligible subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Here, elements of the claimed system are mental processes. Specifically, the claim recites
“detect at least one key signal in said video” (mental process - amounts to determining characteristics in observed data);
“and detect at least one key moment” (mental process – amounts to evaluating the determined characteristics to form judgements on the importance of their associated observed data sections); and
“and decide when to display said content to said viewer” (mental process – amounts to forming on opinion on a course of action based on the evaluation-based judgements).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
“A system for automatically displaying content based on key moments. . . comprising: rules and database; a key moments machine learning module connected with at least one match detector module of at least one external entity. . . a key signals detector module connected with at least one content owner, said rules and database; and said key moments machine learning module; and a viewer connected with said at least one match detector module” (mere instructions to apply the exception – recitation of generic and unspecialized computer components do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea) and
“wherein said key signals detector module is configured to receive a video from at least one of said at least one content owner, and . . . wherein said key moments machine learning module is configured to receive said detected at least one key signal . . . and wherein at least one of said at least one match detector module is configured to receive said detected at least one key moment” (insignificant extra-solution activity - transmitting data to and from system modules is incidental to the claimed subject matter).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
“A system for automatically displaying content based on key moments. . . comprising: rules and database; a key moments machine learning module connected with at least one match detector module of at least one external entity. . . a key signals detector module connected with at least one content owner, said rules and database; and said key moments machine learning module; and a viewer connected with said at least one match detector module” (merely reciting instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more) and
“wherein said key signals detector module is configured to receive a video from at least one of said at least one content owner, and . . . wherein said key moments machine learning module is configured to receive said detected at least one key signal . . . and wherein at least one of said at least one match detector module is configured to receive said detected at least one key moment” (transmitting data is well‐understood, routine, and conventional, see generally Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014); therefore the limitation, which is recited with a high level of generality, remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration).
For the reasons above, Claim 1 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This rejection applies equally to dependent claims 2-13. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed below.
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 2 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said key signals detector module is further configured to receive video type metadata of said video from said at last one of said at least one content owner” (insignificant extra-solution activity - transmitting data to and from system modules is incidental to the claimed subject matter).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said key signals detector module is further configured to receive video type metadata of said video from said at last one of said at least one content owner” (transmitting data is well‐understood, routine, and conventional, see generally Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014); therefore the limitation, which is recited with a high level of generality, remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration).
Accordingly, Claim 2 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 3 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said key moments machine learning module is further configured to receive at least one of: at least one rule; and at least one previously detected key signal from said rules and database” (insignificant extra-solution activity - transmitting data to and from system modules is incidental to the claimed subject matter).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said key moments machine learning module is further configured to receive at least one of: at least one rule; and at least one previously detected key signal from said rules and database” (transmitting data is well‐understood, routine, and conventional, see generally Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014); therefore the limitation, which is recited with a high level of generality, remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration).
Accordingly, Claim 3 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 4 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said at least one external entity comprises at least one ad unit” (field of use or technological environment – merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said at least one external entity comprises at least one ad unit” (merely generally linking to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide an inventive concept).
Accordingly, Claim 4 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 5 depends on. Here, the claim recites additional elements that are mental processes. Specifically, the claim recites
“wherein said detection of at least one key signal in said video is . . . from said video, at least one of: word, sound, volume, pitch, object, color, velocity and size of objects” (mental process – amounts to determining specific characteristics in observed data).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
“configured to be performed by extracting” (mere instructions to apply the exception – recitation of generic and unspecialized computer components do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
“configured to be performed by extracting” (merely reciting instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more).
Accordingly, Claim 5 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 6 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said at least one match detector module is further configured to receive demographic information of said viewer” (insignificant extra-solution activity - transmitting data to and from system modules is incidental to the claimed subject matter).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said at least one match detector module is further configured to receive demographic information of said viewer” (transmitting data is well‐understood, routine, and conventional, see generally Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014); therefore the limitation, which is recited with a high level of generality, remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration).
Accordingly, Claim 6 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 7 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said demographic information comprises at least one of: viewer's location, viewer's age and viewer's income level” (field of use or technological environment – merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said demographic information comprises at least one of: viewer's location, viewer's age and viewer's income level” (merely generally linking to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide an inventive concept).
Accordingly, Claim 7 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 8 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said content comprises at least one of: advertisement, interactive question and interactive content” (field of use or technological environment – merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said content comprises at least one of: advertisement, interactive question and interactive content” (merely generally linking to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide an inventive concept).
Accordingly, Claim 8 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 9:
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 1 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said key moments machine learning module is further connected with said viewer” (mere instructions to apply the exception – recitation of generic and unspecialized computer components do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea) and
“wherein said key moments machine learning module is further configured to receive feedback from said viewer” (insignificant extra-solution activity - transmitting data to and from system modules is incidental to the claimed subject matter).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said key moments machine learning module is further connected with said viewer” (merely reciting instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more) and
“wherein said key moments machine learning module is further configured to receive feedback from said viewer” (transmitting data is well‐understood, routine, and conventional, see generally Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014); therefore the limitation, which is recited with a high level of generality, remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration).
Accordingly, Claim 9 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 10:
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 8 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said at least one match detector module is further configured to receive feedback from said viewer” (insignificant extra-solution activity - transmitting data to and from system modules is incidental to the claimed subject matter).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said at least one match detector module is further configured to receive feedback from said viewer” (transmitting data is well‐understood, routine, and conventional, see generally Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014); therefore the limitation, which is recited with a high level of generality, remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration).
Accordingly, Claim 10 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 11:
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 9 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said feedback comprises at least one of: engagement ratio, closing ratio and ignoring ratio” (field of use or technological environment – merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said feedback comprises at least one of: engagement ratio, closing ratio and ignoring ratio” (merely generally linking to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide an inventive concept).
Accordingly, Claim 11 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 12:
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 12 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said at least one key moment comprises at least one of: fear, anger, sadness, joy, disgust, surprise, anticipation, win, celebration, success, failure, boredom, danger and relaxation” (field of use or technological environment – merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said at least one key moment comprises at least one of: fear, anger, sadness, joy, disgust, surprise, anticipation, win, celebration, success, failure, boredom, danger and relaxation” (merely generally linking to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide an inventive concept).
Accordingly, Claim 12 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 13:
Step 2A Prong 1: See the rejection of Claim 1 above, which Claim 13 depends on.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said at least one key signal comprises at least one of: smiles, handshake, hand wave, hug, face expressions, tears, sweat, love words, swears, admiration words, danger related words, judge whistle, fans jump, fans cheer, running, walking, sleeping, increase speed, decrease speed, jump, raise hands, goal, ball, stretcher, bed, car, house, increasing speed of a ball, long distance movement of a ball, standing still ball, yell, cry, laugh, high pitch voice, low pitch voice and crash” (field of use or technological environment – merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional element:
“wherein said at least one key signal comprises at least one of: smiles, handshake, hand wave, hug, face expressions, tears, sweat, love words, swears, admiration words, danger related words, judge whistle, fans jump, fans cheer, running, walking, sleeping, increase speed, decrease speed, jump, raise hands, goal, ball, stretcher, bed, car, house, increasing speed of a ball, long distance movement of a ball, standing still ball, yell, cry, laugh, high pitch voice, low pitch voice and crash” (merely generally linking to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide an inventive concept).
Accordingly, Claim 13 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 14:
Step 1: Claim 14 is a process claim. Therefore, Claims 14-26 are directed to a statutory category of eligible subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Here, steps of the claimed method are mental processes. Specifically, the claim recites
“A method . . . comprising . . . detecting at least one key signal in said video” (mental process - amounts to determining characteristics in observed data);
“and detecting at least one key moment” (mental process – amounts to evaluating the determined characteristics to form judgements on the importance of their associated observed data sections); and
“deciding . . . when to display said content to a viewer based on said detected at least one key moment” (mental process – amounts to forming on opinion on a course of action based on the evaluation-based judgements).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional elements:
“of automatically displaying content based on key moments . . . by a key signals detector module . . . by a key moments machine learning module . . . by said key moments machine learning module . . . of at least one external entity . . . by said at least one match detector module” (mere instructions to apply the exception – recitation of generic and unspecialized computer components do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea) and
“receiving, by a key signals detector module, a video from at least one content owner and . . . receiving, by a key moments machine learning module, said detected at least one key signal . . . sending, by said key moments machine learning module, said detected at least one key moment to at least one match detector module” (insignificant extra-solution activity - transmitting data to and from system modules is incidental to the claimed subject matter).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements considered individually and in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements:
“of automatically displaying content based on key moments . . . by a key signals detector module . . . by a key moments machine learning module . . . by said key moments machine learning module . . . of at least one external entity . . . by said at least one match detector module” (merely reciting instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more) and
“receiving, by a key signals detector module, a video from at least one content owner and . . . receiving, by a key moments machine learning module, said detected at least one key signal . . . sending, by said key moments machine learning module, said detected at least one key moment to at least one match detector module” (transmitting data is well‐understood, routine, and conventional, see generally Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014); therefore the limitation, which is recited with a high level of generality, remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration).
For the reasons above, Claim 14 is rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This rejection applies equally to dependent claims 15-26. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed below.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 2, in the form of a method. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more.
Accordingly, Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 3, in the form of a method. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more.
Accordingly, Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 4, in the form of a method. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more.
Accordingly, Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 5, in the form of a method. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more.
Accordingly, Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 6, in the form of a method. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more.
Accordingly, Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 7, in the form of a method. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more.
Accordingly, Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 8, in the form of a method. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more.
Accordingly, Claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 9, in the form of a method. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more.
Accordingly, Claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 10, in the form of a method. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more.
Accordingly, Claim 23 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 24, the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 11, in the form of a method. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more.
Accordingly, Claim 24 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 25, the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 12, in the form of a method. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more.
Accordingly, Claim 25 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 26, the claim recites limitations that are all substantially the same as limitations of Claim 13, in the form of a method. The claim is also directed to performing mental processes without integration into a practical component or significantly more.
Accordingly, Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 13-14, 16-18, 21-22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estus et al. (hereinafter Estus) (Pat. Pub. No. US 2021/0058654 A1) in view of Roychowdhury et al. (hereinafter Roychowdhury) (“Video-Data Pipelines for Machine Learning Applications”).
Regarding Claim 1, Estus teaches a system for automatically displaying content based on key moments, comprising (Abstract, “A computerized system for targeted ad insertion receives a program content stream and detects images in the content stream . . . The system may then select an advertisement . . . and inserts an identifier of the matched advertisement at an insertion point into the program content stream”, where “images” include key moments, which are “scenes” composed of “a plurality of objects”, see Para. [0040], “The image detection and recognition component 164 may then recognize one or more visual objects within the images by processing the images . . . a plurality of objects may be recognized as representing a particularly relevant action sequence or scene”; and where “advertisements” are “automatically” displayed, see Para. [0022], “such advertisements may be automatically inserted during playback of the program content by the viewer's device”):
. . . and database (Para. [0063], “The media content storage of the program content 120 and advertisement content 130 may be implemented as one or more database systems”; Para. [0063], “programming interfaces to the data stored as part of the image detection and recognition component 164, the asset matching component 166, the ID insertion component 168, the addressable insertion engine component 172 and/or the device playout component 174, can be available by standard mechanisms such as . . . databases”);
. . . connected with at least one match detector module of at least one external entity (Fig. 1B; Para. [0044] “The asset matching component 166 of the content server 110 may then match one or more of the recognized visual objects within the images to a particular advertisement that correlates with the recognized visual object”, where the “asset matching component 166” is a match detector module, which is of at least one external entity because it is associated with “a remote advertisement sever”, see Para. [0044], “the asset matching component 166 may search . . . an advertisement server”; see generally Para. [0076], “the accessing content of the advertisement in response to the recognizing the identifier . . . may include accessing content of the advertisement at a set-top box from a remote advertisement server” and Para. [0049], “Advertisement content 130 may be provided to the receiving device 140 from the content server 110, directly from advertisers, or from third party advertisement aggregators”);
. . . [an image detection and recognition component] connected with at least one content owner . . . and database (Para. [0040], “an image detection and recognition component 164 of the content server 110 may receive the program content stream 162 and detect images in the program content stream 162”, Fig. 1A-1B, where the “image detection and recognition component 164” is connected to the “content providers”, which are content owners, through the “content server”, see Para. [0030], “The system 100 includes a content server 110, which receives program content 120 . . . Program content 120 may be provided from one or more content providers (not shown), which provide content such as video content and/or audio content . . . ”; and is connected to a “database” see Para. [0063], “programming interfaces to the data stored as part of the image detection and recognition component 164 . . . can be available by standard mechanisms such as . . . databases”);
. . . ;
and a viewer (Para. [0052], “the matched advertisement is played by the device playout component 174 of the receiving device 140 during the corresponding commercial break in the program during playback of the updated program content stream 170 by the receiving device 140”, where the “receiving device 140” includes the viewer “presentation device 150”, see Para. [0037], “Further, the receiving device 140 may itself include user interface devices, such as buttons, switches, a display, and may include the presentation device 150”; see also Fig. 1A)
connected with said at least one match detector module (where the viewer “Presentation Device 150” is connected to the “Asset Matching Component 166” match detector module through a shared connection to the “Device Playout Component 174”; Fig. 1A-1B, where the “Asset Matching Component 166” is connected to the “Device Playout Component 174”, as indicated by the arrows; see also Para. [0052], “the device playout component 174 of the receiving device 140 during the corresponding commercial break in the program during playback of the updated program content stream 170 by the receiving device 140”, where the “presentation device 150” is connected to the “device playout component 174” as components of the same device, see Para. [0037], “Further, the receiving device 140 may itself include user interface devices, such as buttons, switches, a display, and may include the presentation device 150”);
wherein . . . [an image detection and recognition component] is configured to receive a video from at least one of said at least one content owner (Fig. 1A-1B, where the “Image Detection and Recognition Component 164” receives the “Program Content Stream”, which, as discussed above, is “video” from “content providers” through the “content server”, see Para. [0030], “The system 100 includes a content server 110, which receives program content 120 . . . Program content 120 may be provided from one or more content providers (not shown), which provide content such as video content and/or audio content . . . ”),
and detect at least one key signal in said video (Para. [0040], “The image detection and recognition component 164 may then recognize one or more visual objects within the images by processing the images (e.g., using real-time and video processing object detection utilizing computer vision) in a manner to detect particular products, objects, activities, characteristics, language and/or words within the frames, scenes or audio of the program content steam”, where “visual objects within the images” are key signals);
wherein . . . [an image detection and recognition component uses] said detected at least one key signal and detect[s] at least one key moment (Para. [0040], “In some embodiments, a plurality of objects may be recognized as representing a particularly relevant action sequence or scene”, where “recognizing” the “plurality of objects” as a “relevant action sequence or scene” is detecting a key moment from detected signals of the image video frame);
and wherein at least one of said at least one match detector module is configured to receive said detected at least one key moment and decide when to display said content to said viewer (Para. [0044], “The asset matching component 166 of the content server 110 may then match one or more of the recognized visual objects within the images to a particular advertisement”, where the “asset matching component 166”, which is the match detector module, must receive the scenes of a plurality of “image” objects, which are the key moments, to “match” them with “advertisements”, see also Fig. 1B, where the “Asset Matching Component 166”, receives images, as indicated by the arrow symbol, from the “Image Detection and Recognition Component”; Para. [0048], “In response to the asset matching component 166 matching the recognized visual object(s) within the images to an advertisement . . . the identification (ID) insertion component 168 then inserts an identifier of the matched advertisement at an insertion point into the program content stream”, where the “insertion point” in “the program stream”, which determines when the content is displayed to the viewer, is decided by the “asset matching component 166”).
Estus does not teach . . . rules . . . a key moments machine learning module . . . a key signals detector module . . . said rules . . . and said key moments machine learning module . . . said key signals detector module . . . said key moments machine learning module is configured to receive (where rules are not explicitly taught as part of the system and an image detection and recognition component is taught in place of separate modules of a key signals detector followed by a key moments machine learning model).
However, Roychowdhury teaches [a video-data pipeline for machine learning applications (Pg. 1, Title), comprising]
. . . rules (Pg. 4, Col. 1, Para. 1, “to classify a scene we apply the following rules based on the objects groups detected per frame. These rule-based scene categorizations are empirically generated by us and may be subjected to inter-observer variability”; for specific examples of rules see Pg. 4, Col. 1-2)
. . . a key moments machine learning module (Pg. 2, Fig. 1, where the “model”-related components, such as the “Model Training Code”, “Model validation”, and “Model Serving” collectively are within the broadest reasonable interpretation of a key moments machine learning module)
. . . a key signals detector modu