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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 51, 57, 61, 67, 69 have been amended. Claims 51-54, 56-64 and 66-70 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 51-54, 56-64 and 66-70, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-17 of US Patent US 11,775,583. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of following reasons:
Although US Patent 11,775,583 doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitation “wherein the metadata emoji is different from the query emoji, and wherein the metadata emoji and the query emoji are untranslated.” However, claim 2 of the US Patent 11,775,583 disclose “translating the emoji portion into text; determining, for each of the videos, a second textual match score based on the translated emoji portion,” which implicates and is obvious to conclude that the metadata emoji and the query emoji are initially untranslated.
Thus, US Patent 11,775,583 contain(s) every element of claims 51-54,56-64 and 66-70 of the instant application 18/237585 and thus, anticipate or obvious the claim(s) of the instant application. Claims of the instant application 18/237585, therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a 35 patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION F£)R REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
The dependent claims are anticipated or obvious by the species of the patented invention. Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim). This court's predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic application. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761,767 (CCPA 1982); Schneller, 397 F.2d at 354. Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer. The dependent claims were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting." (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 51-53, 56-63, 66-70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tesch et al. (US 20140161356) in view of HAN et al. (US 20190379942) and in further view of GU et al. (US 20170052946) and alternatively or additionally in view of CHEN et al. (US 20180255009) and Huang et al. (US 2017 /0083524).
Regarding claim 51, Tesch teaches a method comprising:
receiving a query comprising a plurality ([0055], [0074] “user … typing a phrase or text … with emoticons and/or acronyms”) of query emoji ([0059] “a smiley face identified in a text message”, [0067], [0079]-[0080], [0082] “emoticons and/or acronyms can be received … as a query term or the like”, [0102], [0138]);
accessing metadata for a video, the metadata comprising a set of emojis generated based at least in part on reactions to the video received from a plurality of user devices in communication with a social platform ([0071] “components described herein can be presented on a social network”, [0074] “emoticons and/or acronyms associated with the set of media content portions”, [0108] “metadata associated with the media content and/or characteristics or features of the videos/images/audio content being analyzed”, [0101]), the metadata comprising a set of emojis based on reactions to the video ([0057] “matching of audio content of the media content with words that are represented by the acronym or the matching of an action, an expression, or audio content with an image or an emotion represented by the emoticon”; [0058] “media splicing … receives the identified emoticons and/or acronyms from the image analysis”; [0059] “portions of media content or media content portions include segments of video clips and/or images that express the emoticon and/or acronym”, [0083], [0178]),
wherein each emoji of the set of emojis has a corresponding classification for the video based in part on instances of the respective emoji in the reactions to the video ([0152] “media content corresponding to the phrases, words, and/or images that meet a set of classification criteria, such as for popular videos”, [0153], [0155]-[0156], [0171] “criteria can include a vague extraction, an estimated extraction or, in other words, an imprecise extraction”);
selecting, from the set of emojis of the metadata, a metadata emoji based at least in part on determining the corresponding classification for the video meets or exceeds a first score threshold;
for each query emoji in the plurality of query emojis determining a second matching score between the respective query emoji and the metadata emoji ([0068] “generate different associations among an acronym and/or an emoticon with an image of media content”, [0080], [0083], [0090], [0092])(see NOTE),
wherein the metadata emoji is different from the respective query emoji ([0060] as in for a “smiley face emoticon (:)) and/or LOL acronym … returns media content portions having a smiley face made by a vampire, werewolf, jack-o-lantern, ghost, or any other hallowed like theme with images, videos segments, or sounds having the Halloween theme and that also correspond to the emoticon a smiley face”, “a smiley face or LOL received … return a vampire smiling or laughing out loud from scenes of the movie "Salem's Lot" … many different classifications”, [0061]) (see NOTE I)
determining that the second matching score of the query emoji and the metadata emoji meets or exceeds a second score threshold ([0073], [0079] “a match of the image … with the identified word/phrase/image of the emoticon and/or acronym can determine what portions are extracted from the media content”, [0080], [0126], wherein fuzzy logic allows for degrees of truth between 0 and 1, with the threshold acting as a point on this scale, also see [0131] “matches or matching criteria of the predetermined criteria can be weighted”);
based at least in part on
(i) the classification for the metadata emoji corresponding to the video
(ii) determining that the second matching score of at least one of the query emojis in the plurality of query emojis and the metadata emoji meets or exceeds the second score threshold ([0073], [0079], [0080], [0126], wherein fuzzy logic allows for degrees of truth between 0 and 1, with the threshold acting as a point on this scale, also see [0131] “matches or matching criteria of the predetermined criteria can be weighted”),
determining that at least one of the query emoji matches the video ([0073], [0079] “a match of the image … with the identified word/phrase/image of the emoticon and/or acronym can determine what portions are extracted from the media content”, [0080], [0126], wherein fuzzy logic allows for degrees of truth between 0 and 1, with the threshold acting as a point on this scale, also see [0131] “matches or matching criteria of the predetermined criteria can be weighted”, C1 “extract a set of media content portions from media content that correspond to the emoticon or the acronym”); and
based at least in part on determining that the at least one of query emoji matches the video, providing for display a representation of the video as a query result ([0050] “generate any number of portions of a movie, film or other video, audio content, photos or the like as candidate to place within the multimedia message for the portion of the multimedia message that corresponds to or is expressed by the emoticon received”, [0059]-[0060], [0074]-[0075] “user, for example, could prefer a scene from a movie (e.g., Rocky) to represent an emoticon and/or acronym, rather than a segment of a home video”, [0098], [0126], [0148], [0158] “generate a sequence of media content portions that correspond to words, phrases or images of the inputs”) with representations of the plurality of query emojis, wherein the representations are visually ordered based at least in part on the second matching score of each of the corresponding query emojis in the plurality of query emojis ([0062], [0137], [0146], [0148])(see NOTE II).
◊ Tesch does not explicitly teach, however, HAN discloses – wherein each emoji of the set of emojis has a corresponding first matching score ([0033], [0038]) for the video based in part on instances of the respective emoji in the reactions to the video (Table 1, [0038]-[0039], [0041]) and
based at least in part on (i) the first matching score for the metadata emoji corresponding to the video meeting or exceeding the first score threshold ([0041], [0055], [0075], [0079], [0087] where “icon occurrence density is greatest are selected” is a threshold).”
NOTE I - HAN further discloses the limitation - “wherein the metadata emoji is different from the query emoji” (see [0128] where “emojis “V5” and “thumbs up”, the text features and the emoji category corresponding to “compliment”, [0148] “correspondence relationships between emotion labels and various emojis on each theme may be established”).
NOTE II Tesch teaches that videos corresponding to emojis are scored and ordered when displayed to the user. Such ordering is construed to be visual ordering and is based on various parameters, such as classification and relevance ([0148] “videos … could be weight high and ordered in a ranked order”, [0158] “a sequence of media content portions that correspond to words, phrases or images of the inputs”, [0155] “a set of video content portions is determined that correspond to the set of words or phrases … predetermined criteria can include a matching classification for the set of video content portions according to a set of predefined classifications ( e.g., classification criteria), a matching action for the set video content portions with the set of words or phrases, and/or a matching audio clip within the set of video content portions that matches a word or phrase of the set of words or phrases”). However, it would be reasonable and obvious to those skill in the art to order the video representations based on any applicable order based on the determined scores. Such second matching scores are determined by Han in [0041], [0055], [0075], [0079], [0087], [0089].
Thus, if Tesch does not explicitly teach, Han discloses the representations are visually ordered based at least in part on the second matching score of each of the corresponding query emojis in the plurality of query emojis [0087], [0089].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tesch to include matching score as disclosed by HAN. Doing so would allow the user to conveniently watch exciting segments in the multimedia resources that can best represent emotional features of the multimedia resources and effectively segment multimedia resources based on a user reaction, facilitating rapid obtaining of a segment of interest by the user and improving the viewing experience of the user (HAN [0057], [0099]).
◊ Tesch does not explicitly teach, however, Gu discloses – “wherein the metadata emoji is different from the query emoji, and wherein the metadata emoji and the query emoji are untranslated” ([0075], [0078] wherein the evaluation is based on picture content and not based on text, thus, it is reasonable and obvious to conclude that the emoji is not translated during matching, [0080] “pictures may also be matched”, [0111], [0114], [0188]-[0189]).
NOTE I - Gu further discloses the limitation - “wherein the metadata emoji is different from the query emoji”([0033], [0038], [0128] where “emojis “V5” and “thumbs up”, the text features and the emoji category corresponding to “compliment”, [0148] “correspondence relationships between emotion labels and various emojis on each theme may be established”).
NOTE Tesch teaches –
“text based message having words or phrases that are matched with the words or phrases correlated to or identified with the media content portions” [0092], wherein - “Each word or phrase… can be any tag, label or metadata that identifies the media content portion” [0089], wherein such “tag, label or metadata” include emoticons –“the words or phrases connected with each portion from the set of home videos … for labeling with an emoticon and/or acronym”; “a portion of video may be labeled according to the word or phrase … and also with emoticons and/or acronyms” [0074].
Based on the above, matching words or phrases (which can be label or metadata, such as emoticons and/or acronyms) in user query with the words or phrases (which can be label or metadata, such as emoticons and/or acronyms) in the media content portions, is obviously analogous to matching emoticon and/or acronym with emoticon and/or acronyms in the video content. Tesch further teaches that such matching is based on “a rule based logic, fuzzy logic, probabilistic, statistical reasoning, classifiers, neural networks” [0126], which implicitly provides a thresholds. Therefore, Tesch obviously and implicitly teaches the limitations of - “determining a second matching score between the query emoji and the metadata emoji; determining that the second matching score of the query emoji and the metadata emoji meets or exceeds a second score threshold.”
However, to merely obviate such reasoning Gu teaches - “determining a second matching score between the query emoji and the metadata emoji; determining that the second matching score of the query emoji and the metadata emoji meets or exceeds a second score threshold” ([0080], [0084], [0091], [0155]).
Gu also teaches “emojis generated based at least in part on reactions to the video received from a plurality of user devices in communication with a social platform” [0029], [0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tesch to include second matching score of the query emoji and the metadata emoji meets or exceeds a second score threshold as disclosed by GU. Doing so quickly and accurately meet current input needs of users and input efficiency (CU [0012]).
◊ Once again, Tesch teaches – that matching is based on various factors, such as (1) fuzzy matching between emojis in a query and emojis in the media content and (2) such as popularity [0152]-[0153], which at least indicates a frequency of selection of such media content.
As stated above, Tesch does not explicitly teach a first threshold (i.e. matching based on “quantity and/or frequency of an emoji associated with a content item”, as disclosed in the applicant’s specification). While Tesch as modified by Han teaches prong (i), Chen additionally or alternatively discloses selecting content based on both prongs–
based at least in part on (i) the first matching score for the metadata emoji corresponding to the video meeting or exceeding the first score threshold ([0123]) and (ii) determining that the second matching score of the query emoji and the metadata emoji meets or exceeds the second score threshold ([0053] “emojis that are frequently used”, [0088] “occurrence density for each type of emoji is greatest can be selected”, [0095], [0100], [0105], [0125]).
Chen additionally or alternatively discloses - wherein the first matching score is a statistical value ([0033] “with respect to a certain video within a certain period (e.g., a month) can be statistically analyzed”, [0038]) based in part on at least one of a quantity or a frequency of instances of the metadata emoji in the reactions to the video ([0053], [0055]-[0056], [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tesch to include prong (i) and (ii) as disclosed by CHEN. Doing so increasing an accuracy of the emoji recommendation (CHEN [0125]) and improve interaction between different users and a click rate of multimedia resources (CHEN [0069]).
NOTE II - However, if Tesch and Han does not explicitly teach, alternatively or additionally Huang discloses the representations are visually ordered ([0043]-[0044]) based at least in part on the second matching score of each of the corresponding query emojis in the plurality of query emojis [0079]-[0080], [00892].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tesch and HAN to include visually ordering based on matching score as disclosed by Huang. Doing so provides categorized content within a dynamic interface without expending resources or requiring manual intervention. (Huang [0003])
Claim 61 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claims 52 and 62, Tesch as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the video comprises a plurality of scenes having corresponding genres, the method further comprising: determining one or more scenes of the plurality of scenes having a genre associated with the query emoji (Tesch [0050], [0178], [0196], HAN [0048], [0084], GU [0052]).
Regarding claims 53 and 63, Tesch as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the set of emojis for the video comprises one or more emojis for each scene of the plurality of scenes (HAN [0048], [0084], [0088]-[0089], Tesch [0059]-[0060] “portions of media content or media content portions include segments of video clips and/or images that express the emoticon and/or acronym … generate any number of portions of a … video … as candidate to place within the multimedia message for the portion of the multimedia message that corresponds to or is expressed by the emoticon received”, [0066] “words or phrases are associated with the image identified and then the media content is searched and spliced for video segments, audio segments, and/or image content portions that represent the words or phrases”, [0083] “determined portions of video corresponding to the emoticon and/or acronym”, [0089], [0148], [0155], [0193]).
Regarding claims 56 and 66, Tesch as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the video is posted at one or more social platforms, the method further comprising identifying the video based on the one or more social platforms (Tesch [0071], [0101], CHEN [0026], GU [0063], HAN [0032]).
Regarding claims 57 and 67, Tesch as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the metadata emoji and the respective query emoji are untranslated images (GU [0078] wherein the evaluation is based on picture content and not based on text, thus, it is reasonable and obvious to conclude that the emoji is not translated during matching [0111], [0114], [0188]-[0189]).
Regarding claims 58 and 68, Tesch as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the representation of the video comprises a video clip from the video (Tesch [0060], [0075] “user, for example, could prefer a scene from a movie (e.g., Rocky) to represent an emoticon and/or acronym, rather than a segment of a home video”, [0098], [0126], [0158] “generate a sequence of media content portions that correspond to words, phrases or images of the inputs”).
Regarding claims 59 and 69, Tesch as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the representation of the video comprises an icon corresponding to the respective emoji (Tesch [0053], [0062], HAN [0032], [0039]).
Regarding claims 60 and 70, Tesch as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the representation of the video is displayed at a remote device (Tesch [0118], [0120], [0222], HAN [0140]).
Claim(s) 54, 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tesch as modified and in further view of ALEY et al. (US 2016/0292148).
Regarding claims 54 and 64, Tesch as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the query comprises a text portion, the method further comprising determining, based on the text portion, a textual match
Tesch does not explicitly teach, however ALEY discloses match score ([0130]-[0131], [0082]-[0084], [0086], [0105]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Tesch to include match score as disclosed by ALEY. Doing so provides a significant performance improvement (ALEY [0095]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments, in regard to the presently amended claims, are addressed in the updated rejections to the claims above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated on PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to POLINA G PEACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/POLINA G PEACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 May 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights