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 .
Remarks
Claims 41-43 and 55-64 are pending.
Claims 44-54 are withdrawn.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 41-43, 55 and 59-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 41 recites the limitation "the dynamic sensor data" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 42-43 are rejected based upon their dependency on claim 41.
Claim 41 recites the limitation "the synthesized data" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 42-43 are rejected based upon their dependency on claim 41.
Claim 55 recites the limitation "the dynamic sensor data" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 55 recites the limitation "the synthesized data" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 59 recites the limitation "the spatial distance" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 60 recites the limitation "the spatial distance" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A computer-implemented method of managing a virtual repository system, the method comprising: a computing system storing data including item records for items used by a second user; and the computer system receiving a selection of a first item record, the first item record being an item record for an item created, used, or owned by the second user, the computer system associating the first item record with media data including use information for the second user; the computing system receiving from a first computing device of a first user a first trigger, the first trigger requesting first information and the first trigger including dynamic data selected from physical location information and an audible voice command and media information, the media information including media data associated with the second user; and the computing system performing trigger-driven item record identification including steps of combining the dynamic sensor data with the media data and comparing the synthesized data against the item records, performing video recognition on the media, and identifying the second user from the media data, and identifying the first item record from the use information for the second user; and the computing system sending results to the first computing device, the results including a link to the first item record, the first item record being responsive to the first trigger to enable a real-time commerce opportunity”.
The limitations of “A computer-implemented method of managing a virtual repository system, the method comprising:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a computing system” and “a first computing device” to perform the claimed steps. The “computing system” and “first computing device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a “a computing system” and “a first computing device” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving a selection of a first item record” and “the computing system receiving from a first computing device of a first user a first trigger, the first trigger requesting first information and the first trigger including dynamic data selected from physical location information and an audible voice command and media information, the media information including media data associated with the second user” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “the computing system sending results to the first computing device”, and the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does 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 element of using “a computing system” and “a first computing device” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving a selection of a first item record” and “the computing system receiving from a first computing device of a first user a first trigger, the first trigger requesting first information and the first trigger including dynamic data selected from physical location information and an audible voice command and media information, the media information including media data associated with the second user” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “the computing system sending results to the first computing device”, and the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the media information includes audio data and the computing system performing trigger-driven item record identification including a step of performing sound recognition on the audio data”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A computer-implemented method of managing a virtual repository system, the method comprising: a computing system storing data including item records for items used by a second user; and the computer system receiving a selection of a first item record, the first item record being an item record for an item created, used, or owned by the second user, the computer system associating the first item record with media data including use information for the second user; the computing system receiving from a first computing device of a first user a first trigger, the first trigger requesting first information and the first trigger including dynamic data selected from physical location information and an audible voice command and media information, the media information including media data associated with the second user; and the computing system performing trigger-driven item record identification including steps of combining the dynamic sensor data with the media data and comparing the synthesized data against the item records, performing sound recognition on the media data, and identifying the second user from the media data, and identifying the first item record from the use information for the second user; and the computing system sending results to the first computing device, the results including a link to the first item record, the first item record being responsive to the first trigger to enable a real-time commerce opportunity”.
The limitations of “A computer-implemented method of managing a virtual repository system, the method comprising: interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and/or “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a computing system” and “a first computing device” to perform the claimed steps. The “computing system” and “first computing device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a computing system” and “a first computing device” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving a selection of a first item record” and “‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does 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 element of using “a computing system” and “a first computing device” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving a selection of a first item record” and “gather data, as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A computer-implemented method of exact matching item records in a repository system supplied from a trigger, the method comprising: a computing system storing a plurality of repositories, each repository of the plurality of repositories being associated with a user of a plurality of users, and each repository of the plurality of repositories including item records associated with at least one user of the plurality of users, and the plurality of repositories including a second repository associated with a second user; and the computing system receiving a selection of an item record, the first item record being an item record of an item associated with the second user, the computing system associating the item records with media data, including use information, for the second user; the computing system receiving from a first computing device of a first user, a first trigger, including dynamic data selected comprising a first trigger voice command including a directive, the directive requesting first information including item records associated with a subject matter, the item records being associated with advertisement media associated with the second repository; and the computing system performing media recognition on the first trigger voice command, identifying the first user from the first trigger voice command, and determining if the subject matter matches item records in at least one of the plurality of repositories, and if the subject matter matches item records in the second repository, then identifying at least one media identification and matching item record, and making available to the first user on the first computing device, via network communication, data corresponding to the at least one matching item record including a link for each matching item record to enable a real-time commerce opportunity. wherein the media recognition is performed by generating a unique media fingerprint for the first trigger voice command. comparing the unique media fingerprint with a database of reference fingerprints. and determining a determined media segment identification with the directive”.
The limitation of “A computer-implemented method of exact matching item records in a repository system supplied from a trigger, the method comprising: records being associated with advertisement media associated with the second repository; and
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a computing system” and “a first computing device” to perform the claimed steps. The “computing system” and “first computing device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a computing system” and “a first computing device” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving a selection of an item record” and “‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does 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 element of using “a computing system” and “a first computing device” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving a selection of an item record” and “‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the first trigger including location information”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the first trigger location information being associated with the matching item record in the second repository”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “a second location being associated with the matching item record in the second repository, and determining if the spatial distance between the first trigger location and the second location is less than a predetermined range”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “a second location being associated with the second user in the second repository, and determining if the spatial distance between the first trigger location and the second location is less than a predetermined range”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the media recognition comprising speech recognition”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the media recognition comprising voice recognition”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the media identification corresponding to at least one of a television program, a streaming program, a movie, a item record, scene information, program information, celebrity names, entertainment information, program schedules, tv guide schedule information, a live event, and an advertisement”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “the media identification corresponding to at least one of video media and audio media”. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
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.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballai et al. (‘Ballai’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20130205336) in view of Vandecasteele et al. (‘Vandecasteele’ hereinafter) (Vandecasteele et al., "Spatio-temporal wardrobe generation of actors’ clothing in video content," Human-Computer Interaction. Novel User Experiences: 18th International Conference, HCI International 2016, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 17-22, 2016).
As per claim 41, Ballai teaches
A computer-implemented method of managing a virtual repository system, the method comprising: (see abstract and background)
a computing system storing data including item records for items used by a second user; (scene-indexed product information includes specific identification information, such as, in the case of an article of clothing, the brand, the name of that item, the name of the actor wearing it, paragraph [0047])
and the computer system receiving a selection of a first item record, the first item record being an item record for an item created, used, or owned by the second user, the computer system associating the first item record with media data including use information for the second user; (query for specific item, paragraphs [0044],[0047],[0057]-[0060])
the computing system receiving from a first computing device of a first user a first trigger, the first trigger requesting first information and the first trigger including dynamic data selected from physical location information and an audible voice command and media information, the media information including media data associated with the second user; (user sends query for specific items while playing a video for scene-indexed product information, paragraph [0044]; scene-indexed product information includes specific identification information, such as, in the case of an article of clothing, the brand, the name of that item, the name of the actor wearing it, paragraph [0047])
and the computing system sending results to the first computing device, the results including a link to the first item record, the first item record being responsive to the first trigger
Ballai does not explicitly indicate “and the computing system performing trigger-driven item record identification including steps of combining the dynamic sensor data with the media data and comparing the synthesized data against the item records, performing video recognition on the media, and identifying the second user from the media data, and identifying the first item record from the use information for the second user;”, “to enable a real-time commerce opportunity”.
However, Vandecasteele discloses “and the computing system performing trigger-driven item record identification including steps of performing video recognition on the media, and identifying the second user from the media data, and identifying the first item record from the use information for the second user;” (Actor-based querying can be performed using the trainable Face++ recognition; The XML/JSON spatio-temporal actor wardrobes can be used in a wide range of applications, such as second screen TV shopping apps and video clothing search engines, section 5), “to enable a real-time commerce opportunity” (facilitate e-commerce shopping, section 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ballai and Vandecasteele because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by reduces the required efforts for consumers to find interesting items (see Vandecasteele, Introduction). This gives the user the advantage of being able find a retailer for items they see in media content.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballai et al. (‘Ballai’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20130205336) in view of Vandecasteele et al. (‘Vandecasteele’ hereinafter) (Vandecasteele et al., "Spatio-temporal wardrobe generation of actors’ clothing in video content," Human-Computer Interaction. Novel User Experiences: 18th International Conference, HCI International 2016, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 17-22, 2016) and further in view of McSorley (Patent Number 9558407).
As per claim 42,
Neither Ballai nor Vandecasteele explicitly indicate “the media information includes audio data and the computing system performing trigger-driven item record identification including a step of performing sound recognition on the audio data.”
However, McSorley discloses “the media information includes audio data and the computing system performing trigger-driven item record identification including a step of performing sound recognition on the audio data” (identify one or more characters (e.g., an actor, an actress, etc.) and/or objects using voice recognition techniques, column 5, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ballai, Vandecasteele and McSorley because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to recognize and actor using to voice recognition to provide more media context for a user and allow for searching of episodes while consuming media (see McSorley, background). This gives the user the advantage of faster access to context information providing the ability to find desired content more quickly.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballai et al. (‘Ballai’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20130205336) in view of Vandecasteele et al. (‘Vandecasteele’ hereinafter) (Vandecasteele et al., "Spatio-temporal wardrobe generation of actors’ clothing in video content," Human-Computer Interaction. Novel User Experiences: 18th International Conference, HCI International 2016, Toronto, ON, Canada, July 17-22, 2016) and further in view of Sarukkai (Publication Number 20080147608).
As per claim 43, Ballai teaches
displaying the results on the first computing device, and filtering the results
Neither Ballai nor Vandecasteele “on the first computing device”.
However, Sarukkai discloses “on the first computing device” (the client device presents provides an option to restrict, paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ballai, Vandecasteele and Sarukkai because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the indexing and searching of video content (see Sarukkai, paragraphs [0003]-[0005]). This gives the user the advantage of faster access to desired content.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballai et al. (‘Ballai’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20130205336) in view of McSorley (Patent Number 9558407).
As per claim 55, Ballai teaches
A computer-implemented method of managing a virtual repository system, the method comprising: (see abstract and background)
a computing system storing data including item records for items used by a second user; (scene-indexed product information includes specific identification information, such as, in the case of an article of clothing, the brand, the name of that item, the name of the actor wearing it, paragraph [0047])
and the computer system receiving a selection of a first item record, the first item record being an item record for an item created, used, or owned by the second user, the computer system associating the first item record with media data including use information for the second user; (query for specific item, paragraphs [0044],[0047],[0057]-[0060])
the computing system receiving from a first computing device of a first user a first trigger, the first trigger requesting first information and the first trigger including dynamic data selected from physical location information and an audible voice command and media information, the media information including media data associated with the second user; (user sends query for specific items while playing a video for scene-indexed product information, paragraph [0044]; scene-indexed product information includes specific identification information, such as, in the case of an article of clothing, the brand, the name of that item, the name of the actor wearing it, paragraph [0047])
and the computing system performing trigger-driven item record identification including steps of combining the dynamic sensor data with the media data and comparing the synthesized data against the item records, scene-indexed product information includes specific identification information, such as, in the case of an article of clothing, the brand, the name of that item, the name of the actor wearing it, paragraph [0047])
and the computing system sending results to the first computing device, the results including a link to the first item record, the first item record being responsive to the first trigger to enable a real-time commerce opportunity. (query results including link to web site for item and make a retail purchase, paragraph [0060]).
Ballai does not explicitly indicate “performing sound recognition on the media data, and identifying the second user from the media data”.
However, McSorley discloses “performing sound recognition on the media data, and identifying the second user from the media data” (identify one or more characters (e.g., an actor, an actress, etc.) and/or objects using voice recognition techniques, column 5, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ballai and McSorley because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to recognize and actor using to voice recognition to provide more media context for a user and allow for searching of episodes while consuming media (see McSorley, background). This gives the user the advantage of faster access to context information providing the ability to find desired content more quickly.
Claims 56-58 and 61-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballai et al. (‘Ballai’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20130205336) in view of McSorley (Patent Number 9558407) and further in view of Harron et al. (Harron' hereinafter) (Publication Number 20140236988).
As per claim 56, Ballai teaches
A computer-implemented method of exact matching item records in a repository system supplied from a trigger, the method comprising: (see abstract and background)
a computing system storing a plurality of repositories, each repository of the plurality of repositories being associated with a user of a plurality of users, and each repository of the plurality of repositories including item records associated with at least one user of the plurality of users, and the plurality of repositories including a second repository associated with a second user; (database with specific video, scene, location information, paragraph [0034], where the database information of specific videos reads on plurality of repositories because one of skill in the art would know that each of the specific videos could be considered its own repository; includes user feedback and ratings information, paragraphs [0039]-[0040], where including user information reads on association with user; scene-indexed product information includes specific identification information, such as, in the case of an article of clothing, the brand, the name of that item, the name of the actor wearing it, paragraph [0047], where actor wearing reads on association with second user)
and the computing system receiving a selection of an item record, the first item record being an item record of an item associated with the second user, the computing system associating the item records with media data, including use information, for the second user; (query for specific item, paragraphs [0044],[0047],[0057]-[0060])
the computing system receiving from a first computing device of a first user, a first trigger, including dynamic data selected comprising a first trigger
and the computing system performing media recognition on the first trigger
and making available to the first user on the first computing device, via network communication, data corresponding to the at least one matching item record including a link for each matching item record to enable a real-time commerce opportunity,
Ballai does not explicitly indicate “voice command”, “identifying the first user from the
However, McSorley discloses “voice command” (user issues voice command, column 6, lines 54-57), “identifying the first user from the
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ballai and McSorley because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to recognize and actor using to voice recognition to provide more media context for a user and allow for searching of episodes while consuming media (see McSorley, background). This gives the user the advantage of faster access to context information providing the ability to find desired content more quickly.
Neither Ballai nor McSorley explicitly indicates “wherein the media recognition is performed by generating a unique media fingerprint for the first trigger voice command. comparing the unique media fingerprint with a database of reference fingerprints. and determining a determined media segment identification with the directive”.
However, Harron discloses “wherein the media recognition is performed by generating a unique media fingerprint for the first trigger voice command. comparing the unique media fingerprint with a database of reference fingerprints. and determining a determined media segment identification with the directive” (video identification system communicates with watching station to identify video content using index of known reference fingerprints of video content, paragraph [0025]; the video identification system may determine that two or more query fingerprints match two or more reference fingerprints by using various distance measurement techniques, paragraphs [0079]-[0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ballai, McSorley and Harron because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by identifying video content via fingerprint matching using a two-step process (see Harron, paragraph [0016]). This gives the user the advantage of proving an algorithm to identify the candidate fingerprints that is less computationally intensive than the algorithm used to identify the matching fingerprints (see Harron, paragraph [0016]).
As per claim 57, Ballai teaches
the first trigger including location information. (query for specific items while playing a video for scene-indexed product information, paragraph [0044]; scene-indexed product information includes specific identification information, such as, in the case of an article of clothing, the brand, the name of that item, the name of the actor wearing it, paragraph [0047], where the name of actor wearing it reads on location information)
As per claim 58, Ballai teaches
the first trigger location information being associated with the matching item record in the second repository. (query for specific items while playing a video for scene-indexed product information, paragraph [0044])
As per claim 61,
Ballai does not explicitly indicate “the media recognition comprising speech recognition”.
However, McSorley discloses “the media recognition comprising speech recognition” (column 5, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ballai and McSorley because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to recognize and actor using to voice recognition to provide more media context for a user and allow for searching of episodes while consuming media (see McSorley, background). This gives the user the advantage of faster access to context information providing the ability to find desired content more quickly.
As per claim 62,
Ballai does not explicitly indicate “the media recognition comprising voice recognition”.
However, McSorley discloses “the media recognition comprising voice recognition” (column 5, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ballai and McSorley because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to recognize and actor using to voice recognition to provide more media context for a user and allow for searching of episodes while consuming media (see McSorley, background). This gives the user the advantage of faster access to context information providing the ability to find desired content more quickly.
As per claim 63, Ballai teaches
media identification corresponding to at least one of a television program, a streaming program, a movie, a item record, scene information, program information, celebrity names, entertainment information, program schedules, tv guide schedule information, a live event, and an advertisement. (paragraph [0032])
As per claim 64, Ballai teaches
the media identification corresponding to at least one of video media and audio media. (paragraph [0032])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections filed 10/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues under Step 2A that the rejection “errs in labeling the core steps as a mental process because no human can perform the claimed steps” because the “system receives dynamic data selected from physical location information and an audible voice command (Claims 41, 55). This acquisition uses hardware (GPS, microphone, network communication) to capture data streams reflective of the real-world environment” (applicant arguments, page 9). However, the receiving steps in the claim are recognized in the instant rejections as being additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity that includes data gathering (i.e. the receiving in the claimed steps) and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, the argued hardware in the claims are also additional elements, specifically generic computer components and the claims are mere instructions to apply the exception using these generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, these arguments are not convincing because the receiving and hardware are shown to be additional elements in the rejections of record and are not mental processes as argued by the applicant.
Applicant further argues under Step 2A that the rejection “errs in labeling the core steps as a mental process because no human can perform the claimed steps” because “The system must then perform the step of combining the dynamic data with the media data and comparing the combined data against the item records. (Claims 41, 55). This is a non-generic computational step. It requires specialized programming to algorithmically combine disparate data types-real-time geographic coordinates (from GPS), processed audio (from voice command), and recognized video features (from media data)-into a single data product for a specialized comparison. This complex synthesis and comparison is what enables the system to proactively identify a specific item record from millions of possibilities based on simultaneous real-world cues” (applicant arguments, page 9). The examiner disagrees since comparing data records are operations that can readily be performed in the human mind and there is no evidence cited by the applicant showing how these steps are non-generic or how they require specialized programming or specialized comparison as argued. Further, the human mind can perform complex synthesis and identify item records based on these different data-type comparisons as argued. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues that “the claims are not directed to a judicial exception because they are not merely an automation of a mental process, but an end-to-end technical process that relies on complex, non-human data acquisition and synthesis to create a real-time output that facilitates commerce, and further because they recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application” (applicant arguments, pages 9-10). However, the applicant has not shown how the additional elements of applying generic hardware, receiving data / data-gathering, and sending results in the claims integrates the judicial exception into a practical application using one or more of the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). The broadly claimed “real-time commerce opportunity” is shown to be an abstract idea under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping and it is not clear how the additional elements integrate to realize a practical application as required under Step 2A, Prong Two. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant argues under Step 2B that “the unique and synergistic combination of non-conventional technical steps provides the requisite inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself” by claiming 1) “dynamic, non-manual sensor data”, 2) performing “non-generic combination of disparate data to create” a search vector, 3) “matching” this vector against multiple repositories, 4) a “low-latency” technical goal, and 5) a non-conventional architecture (see applicant arguments, page 10). Applicant further argues that the inventive concept “may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components that are individually well-known and conventional such as 1) “Dynamic, Cross-Referenced Triggers”, and 2) “Specialized Architecture for Performance” (see applicant arguments, page 11). However, Step 2B is concerned with the re-evaluation of additional elements considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity to find if they are unconventional or otherwise more than well-understood, routine conventional activity (WURC). The only additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity in the claims (and identified in the 35 USC 101 rejections of record) are the receiving steps, but the applicant has not mentioned any of these steps in their arguments as required under Step 2B. The “non-conventional technical steps” and “non-generic arrangement of components” enumerated by the applicant are not elements that would be applicable under Step 2B for determination of significantly more; see MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections filed 10/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 41 and 55, applicant argues that the cited references do not teach “dynamic sensor data” and “combining the dynamic sensor data with the media data” as claimed (see applicant arguments, page 12). However, these claims describe “dynamic data selected from physical location information and an audible voice command and media information”, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of this dynamic data could be media information (i.e. the “selected from” in the claim means that the dynamic data is selected from the three options in the claim). It is noted that this “media information” is defined in the specification as being associated with “a virtual repository” (see specification @ paragraph [0016]) and does not appear to be “dynamic” in nature. Further, the claim later refers to “the dynamic sensor data”, but there is no antecedent support for this element. Even if the applicant meant for “the dynamic sensor data” to find antecedent basis in the “dynamic data” element, the “combining the dynamic sensor data with the media data” could be interpreted as combining the “media information” with the “media data” and it is not clear how either of these elements would be “dynamic” nor “sensor” data as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 43 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. It is noted that the newly added Sarukkai reference, in combination with previous cited references, teach claim 43.
Applicant further argues that either Ballai nor Vandecasteele teach the new claim amendment of “enable a real-time commerce opportunity” in the independent claims (see applicant arguments, pages 12-13). However, Vandecasteele facilitating e-commerce shopping at Section 5, and Ballai teaches make a retail purchase at paragraph [0060]. These are both examples of enabling a real-time commerce opportunity as claimed. Therefore, the arguments are not convincing.
Applicant further argues that the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 42 and 55-64 have “failed to provide sufficient motivation or reasoning to combine the cited references”, specifically Ballai in view of McSorley (applicant arguments, page 13). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, McSorley teaches improving the invention by being able to recognize and actor using to voice recognition to provide more media context for a user and allow for searching of episodes while consuming media (see McSorley, background). This gives the user the advantage of faster access to context information providing the ability to find desired content more quickly. Therefore, these arguments are not convincing.
It is noted that the previous 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 59-60 were withdrawn. Although other rejections remain and/or were added, these claims are otherwise objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if all other outstanding rejections of these claims are resolved.
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 JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Jay A Morrison/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151