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 Claims
This is the final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on August 12, 2026.
Claims 1-14, and 16-22 have been amended; claim 24 has been canceled; and new claims 25-28 have been added.
Claims 1-23 and 25-28 are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Priority
The applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged
Responses to Arguments/Remarks
Claim Objections:
The amended claims have overcome the claim objections, and the claim objections have been withdrawn. The amended claims cause more issues, and the applicant has been advised to refer to the claim objection section for details.
Claim Interpretation:
The amended claims have overcome the claim interpretation, and the claim interpretation has been withdrawn.
35 USC § 112:
The amended claims have overcome the 112 rejections, and the 112 rejections have been withdrawn. The amended claims cause more issues, and the applicant has been advised to refer to the 112 rejection section for details.
35 USC § 101:
The applicant contends that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under the USPTO’s subject matter guidance. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amended claim 1 as a whole is directed to managing a video contest. In particular, the claim recites receiving videos, storing videos, managing the presentation of the videos, presenting two or more videos, receiving votes, and generating a leaderboard. In other words, the claim falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)) because the claim involves the steps for a voting process, which is a social activity and related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. A voting process is identified as an abstract idea under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C). In general, the computer system is used as a tool to perform/implement the abstract idea. Specifically, the selection module is also an additional element that is used to evenly present the submitted videos to the voters. Presenting videos by following the predefined rules and maintaining a presenting history are business procedures and part of managing a video contest. Presenting videos evenly based on the stored/updated history data is merely an improvement of the cited abstract idea itself, but it does not present any improvements in the functioning of a computer or in any other technology or technical field. The non-transitory machine-readable storage storing instructions and a hardware processor executing the stored instructions are merely recited as regular computer components to perform and/or automate the identified abstract idea. Regarding the December 5, 2025 memorandum and Ex parte Desjardines, the examiner analyzed the limitations of claim 1 and determined that they are directed to managing a video contest, an abstract idea under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the claim involves the steps for a voting process, which is a social activity and related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. A voting process is identified as an abstract idea under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C).
The applicant contends that the claims integrated the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant states: “the disclosed methods and systems are directed to a specific technological operations and interactions that implement a distributed presentation-control loop.” The examiner would like to point out that the operations and interactions of the claimed distributed presentation-control loop, such as receiving videos, storing videos, managing the presentation of the videos, presenting two or more videos, receiving votes, and generating a leaderboard, are actions required to perform the abstract idea. Presenting videos to the voters evenly is merely an improvement of the cited abstract idea itself, but it does not present any improvements in the functioning of a computer or in any other technology or technical field. The examiner would like to further point out that the confirmation messages from voters are votes from the client devices of the voting users (see paragraphs [0037], [0058], and [0070] of the specification), which is a required step of the voting process. The specification does not disclose receiving a presentation confirmation message from a voter for a not-voted video. The additional elements of a social media-based video contest management system including a selection module and comprising a hardware processor and a non-transitory machine-readable storage, an algorithm, a network, multiple client devices of posting users, a storage device, a client device, and a first electronic user interface portion are computer components used as tools to perform/implement these operations and interactions. The use of computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than the computer components performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements of a network, multiple client devices of posting users, a storage device, and a client device are being used in their ordinary capacities. Additionally, the additional element of a selection module comprising an algorithm, implemented as software, is a computer component for performing the step of presenting videos evenly, which is part of managing a video contest, an identified abstract idea. As discussed above by the examiner, presenting videos by following predefined rules and maintaining a presenting history are business procedures and part of the voting process. Presenting videos evenly based on the stored/updated history data is merely an improvement of the cited abstract idea itself, but it does not present any improvements in the functioning of a computer or in any other technology or technical field. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. Additionally, the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine; the claim does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful ways beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 25 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes managing a video contest, grouped within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements, individually and in combination, merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea. Claim 25 recites “wherein the hardware processor further caused to: receive, over the network, from a client device of the first voting user, a presentation confirmation message indicating that at least one video identified in the presentation message was presented via the first presentation portion; and update, based on the presentation confirmation message, a presentation history data structure by incrementing at least one presentation count for the at least one identified video indicated as presented.”
Dependent claim 26 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes managing a video contest, grouped within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements, individually and in combination, merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea. Claim 26 recites “wherein the hardware processor further caused to: transmit, over the network, to the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the post leaderboard data structure and user interface data defining a second electronic user interface portion comprising a second presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the post leaderboard data structure.”
Dependent claim 27 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes managing a video contest, grouped within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements, individually and in combination, merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea. Claim 27 recites “wherein the hardware processor further caused to: select, from the first set of videos, via the selection module, for the voting users, respective subsets of two or more videos from the first set of multiple videos for presentation to the voting users, wherein at least one first subset selected for the first voting user is different than at least one second subset selected for a second voting user; and manage an overall selection of the respective subsets such that, during the contest, each video in the first set of multiple videos is selected for inclusion in the first and the second subset an equal number of times as each other video in the first set of multiple videos.”
Dependent claim 28 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes managing a video contest, grouped within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements, individually and in combination, merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea. Claim 28 recites “wherein execution of the instructions by the hardware processor further causes the hardware processor to: store, in the storage device, for the first voting user of the voting users, a record identifying videos from the first set of multiple videos that have been presented to the first voting user; determine at least one video to be subsequently presented to the first voting user based on the record; and tally the votes by calculating a first score for a first video and a second score for a second video, the first video and the second video being from the first set of multiple videos, wherein, when the first video and the second video are presented for voting via the first presentation portion, (i) the first score is a function of at least one of votes cast for the first video and votes cast for the second video, and (ii) the second score is a function of at least one of votes cast for the second video and votes cast for the first video, and wherein the list of videos in the post leaderboard data structure is ordered by ordering at least the first video and the second video according to the first score and the second score and ordering other videos of the first set of multiple videos according to at least one other additional score calculated for another video of the first set.”
Regarding Example 37, claims of the instant application are not similar to Example 37, because claims in Example 37 recite the technical process of determining the amount of use of each icon over a predetermined period of time and automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use. However, claim 1 of the instant application merely recites presenting videos based on a stored/updated record of the number of times a video being presented. Presenting videos by following the predefined rules and maintaining a presenting history are business procedures and part of the voting process. Presenting videos evenly based on the stored/updated history data is merely an improvement of the cited abstract idea itself, but it does not present any improvements in the functioning of a computer or in any other technology or technical field. Additionally, as the examiner pointed out above, the confirmation messages from voters are votes from the client devices of the voting users (see paragraphs [0037], [0058], and [0070] of the specification), which is a required step of the voting process. The specification does not disclose receiving a confirmation message from a voter for a not-voted video.
Regarding Example 35, claims of the instant application are not similar to Example 35, because claims in Example 35 recites a specific “combination of obtaining information from the mobile communication device (instead of the ATM keypad) and using the image (instead of a PIN) to verify the customer’s identity by matching identification information does not merely select information by content or source, in contrast to Electric Power, but instead describes a process that differs from the routine and conventional sequence of events normally conducted by ATM verification, such as entering a PIN, similar to the unconventional sequence of events in DDR.” However, claim 1 of the instant application recites the steps/functions of receiving videos, storing videos, managing the presentation of the videos, presenting two or more videos, receiving votes, and generating a leaderboard. These steps/functions are actions required to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, as discussed above by the examiner, presenting videos by following the predefined rules and maintaining a presenting history are business procedures and part of the voting process. Presenting videos evenly based on the stored/updated history data is merely an improvement of the cited abstract idea itself, but it does not present any improvements in the functioning of a computer or in any other technology or technical field.
Regarding DDR Holdings, claims of the instant application are not similar to DDR Holdings, In the case of DDR Holdings, the claim addresses the issue of retaining website visitors from being diverted from a host’s web site to an advertiser’s web site, for which “the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer network". Here, however, the instant claim is directed to an abstract idea of managing video contest. Unlike the situation in DDR Holdings, claim 1 of the instant application did not identify any issues particular to computer networks and/or the internet that the claim allegedly overcomes. Claim 1 of the instant application recites the steps/functions of receiving videos, storing videos, managing the presentation of the videos, presenting two or more videos, receiving votes, and generating a leaderboard. These steps/functions are actions required to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, as discussed above by the examiner, presenting videos by following the predefined rules and maintaining a presenting history are business procedures and part of the voting process. Presenting videos evenly based on the stored/updated history data is merely an improvement of the cited abstract idea itself, but it does not present any improvements in the functioning of a computer or in any other technology or technical field.
The applicant contends that the claims recite significantly more than a judicial exception. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional elements of a social media-based video contest management system including a selection module and comprising a hardware processor and a non-transitory machine-readable storage, an algorithm, a network, multiple client devices of posting users, a storage device, a client device, and a first electronic user interface portion of claim 1 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, using a social media-based video contest management system including a selection module and comprising a hardware processor and a non-transitory machine-readable storage, an algorithm, a network, multiple client devices of posting users, a storage device, a client device, and a first electronic user interface portion to perform the steps of receiving videos, storing videos, managing the presentation of the videos, presenting two or more videos, receiving votes, and generating a leaderboard, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These steps correspond to actions required to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements of a network, multiple client devices of posting users, a storage device, and a client device are being used in their ordinary capacities. Additionally, the additional element of a selection module comprising an algorithm, implemented as software, is a computer component for performing the step of presenting videos evenly, which is part of managing a video contest, an identified abstract idea. Furthermore, as the examiner pointed out above, the confirmation messages from voters are votes from the client devices of the voting users (see paragraphs [0037], [0058], and [0070] of the specification), which is a required step of the voting process. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recites the concept of managing a video contest. Additionally, the use of computer components to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself or supply any inventive concept under Step 2B.
35 USC § 103:
The amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-13, 15, 17-18, 22, and 27-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite “a first set of multiple videos” and “the first set of videos.” Claims 2-6, 11-13, 18, 20, 22, and 27-28 recite “the first set of multiple videos” and/or “the first set of videos.” Specifically for claims 4, 12, and 20, these claims recite both “the first set of multiple videos” and “the first set of videos.” For consistency, either “the first set of videos” is changed to “the first set of multiple videos,” or “the first set of multiple videos” is changed to “the first set of videos.” Additionally, claim 3 recites “calculate raw scores for videos in first the set of multiple videos,” and claim 4 recites “calculate strength of schedule (SOS) scores for the videos in first the set of multiple videos based on wins for the videos.” The underlined parts should be changed to “in the first set.”
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite “transmit, over the network to a client device of a first voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting two or more videos … to generate an input comprising a vote by the first user for at least one of the two or more videos; receive, over the network, electronic messages representing the votes of the first user.” The phrasing, “the first user,” should be changed to “the first voting user,” for consistency.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite “transmit, over the network to a client device of a first voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting two or more videos, determined by the selection module, to be presented simultaneously or in sequence to the first voting user a first interactive element operable by the given voting user to generate an input representing comprising a vote by the first user for at least one of the two or more videos.” For more clarity, this limitation should be changed to “transmit, over the network to a client device of a first voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting two or more videos, determined by the selection module, to be presented simultaneously or in sequence to the first voting user and a first interactive element operable by the given voting user to generate an input representing comprising a vote by the first user for at least one of the two or more videos.”
Claim 15 recites “calculate scores for the videos in the set of multiple videos that are a function of at least one of.” The phrasing, “the set of multiple videos,” should be changed to “the first set of multiple videos,” for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-23 and 25-28 of this application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 and 27-30 of copending Application No. 19/029,789 (789 application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Application No. 19/029,789
This Application
Claim 1:
A social media-based video contest management system for presenting video submissions to voting users, including a presentation balancing component module comprising a feed algorithm configured to manage the presentation of video submissions within a contest in an attempt to manage the presentation such that the video submissions are seen equally by all voting users in the contest, the system comprising:
a hardware processor; and
a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium encoded with instructions executable by the hardware processor, which, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the hardware processor to:
receive, over a network, from multiple client devices of posting users, a first set of multiple videos for the contest;
store the first set of videos in a storage device;
execute the presentation balancing component to manage the presentation, to voting users, of the videos from the first set of videos based on a determination by the feed algorithm, where the feed algorithm is operable to use a stored record of a number of times the video submissions have been seen during the contest and based thereon determine which submissions should be subsequently presented to individual voting users;
transmit, over the network to a client device of a first voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting two or more videos, determined by the presentation balancing component, to be presented simultaneously or in sequence to the first voting user and a first interactive element operable by the given voting user to generate an input comprising a vote by the first user for at least one of the two or more videos;
receive, over the network, electronic messages representing the votes of the first user; and
generate, for display to voting users, a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of videos ordered according to the a number of votes received for the videos.
Claim 1:
A social media-based video contest management system for presenting video submissions to voting users, including a selection module comprising an algorithm configured to manage the presentation of video submissions within a contest in an attempt to manage the presentation such that the video submissions are seen equally by all voting users in the contest, the system comprising:
a hardware processor; and
a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium encoded with instructions executable by the hardware processor, which, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the hardware processor to:
receive, over a network, from multiple client devices of posting users, a first set of multiple videos for the contest;
store the first set of videos in a storage device;
execute the selection module to manage the presentation, to voting users, of the videos from the first set of videos based on a determination by the algorithm, where the algorithm is operable to use a stored record of a number of times the video submissions have been seen during the contest and based thereon determine which submissions should be subsequently presented to individual voting users;
transmit, over the network to a client device of a first voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting two or more videos determined by the selection module, to be presented simultaneously or in sequence to the first voting user a first interactive element operable to generate an input comprising a vote by the first user for at least one of the two or more videos;
receive, over the network, electronic messages representing the votes of the first user; and
generate, for display for voting users, a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of videos ordered according to a number of votes for the videos.
Application No. 19/029,789
This Application
Claim 2:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, the hardware processor further caused to: establish a submission period during which posting users may submit videos for inclusion in the first set of multiple videos and the voting users may submit votes for the videos; and establish a judging only period during which no users may submit videos for inclusion in the first set of multiple videos and the voting users may submit votes for the videos.
Claim 2:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, the hardware processor further caused to: establish a submission period during which posting users may submit videos for inclusion in the first set of multiple videos and the voting users may submit votes for the videos; and establish a judging only period during which no users may submit videos for inclusion in the first set of multiple videos and the voting users may submit votes for the videos.
Claim 3:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, the hardware processor further caused to: calculate raw scores for videos in the first set of multiple videos, wherein a raw score for a given video is calculated based on (i) a number of times the given video is seen by the voting users and (ii) a number of votes cast for the given video, wherein the raw score for a given video is calculated by dividing the number of votes cast for the given video by the number of times the given video is seen by the voting users.
Claim 3:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, the hardware processor further caused to: calculate raw scores for videos in the first set of multiple videos, wherein a raw score for a given video is calculated based on (i) a number of times the given video is seen by the voting users and (ii) a number of votes cast for the given video, wherein the raw score for a given video is calculated by dividing the number of votes cast for the given video by the number of times the given video is seen by the voting users.
Claim 4:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 3, the hardware processor further caused to: calculate strength of schedule (SOS) scores for the videos in the first set of multiple videos based on wins for the videos, wherein a video is accorded a win when the video receives a vote from a voting user over other videos in the first set of videos, and wherein an SOS score for a given video is calculated based on (i) raw scores of other videos in the first set of videos where the given video is accorded a win, (ii) a number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the first set of multiple videos, and (iii) a total number of wins accorded the given video, wherein the SOS score for the given video is calculated by multiplying (i) the raw scores of the other videos in the first set of videos where the given video is accorded a win by (ii) the number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the first set of multiple videos.
Claim 4:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 3, the hardware processor further caused to: calculate strength of schedule (SOS) scores for the videos in the first set of multiple videos based on wins for the videos, wherein a video is accorded a win when the video receives a vote from a voting user over other videos in the first set of videos, and wherein an SOS score for a given video is calculated based on (i) raw scores of other videos in the first set of videos where the given video is accorded a win, (ii) a number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the first set of multiple videos, and (iii) a total number of wins accorded the given video, wherein the SOS score for the given video is calculated by multiplying (i) the raw scores of the other videos in the first set of videos where the given video is accorded a win by (ii) the number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the first set of multiple videos.
Claim 5:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, the hardware processor further caused to: calculate final scores for videos in the first set of multiple videos, wherein a final score for a given video is calculated based on (i) a raw score for the given video and (ii) an SOS score for the given video, wherein the final score for the given video is calculated by adding (i) the raw score for the given video to (ii) the SOS score for the given video; and order the list of the videos in the post leaderboard data structure according to the final scores.
Claim 5:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, the hardware processor further caused to: calculate final scores for videos in the first set of multiple videos, wherein a final score for a given video is calculated based on (i) a raw score for the given video and (ii) a SOS score for the given video, wherein the final score for the given video is calculated by adding (i) the raw score for the given video to (ii) the SOS score for the given video; and ordering the list of the videos in the post leaderboard data structure according to the final scores.
Claim 6:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, wherein execution of the instructions by the hardware processor to select, from the first set of multiple stored videos, via the presentation balancing component, the first set of videos of multiple videos from the first set of multiple videos cause the hardware processor to: select, from the stored videos, via the presentation balancing component, a simultaneous judging set comprising at least two videos, wherein the presentation balancing component is configured to select different simultaneous judging sets for different voting users; wherein the first presentation portion is for presenting the videos in the simultaneous judging set in a first sequence, and votes represent preferences for a currently-playing video with respect to a video played immediately before the currently-playing video.
Claim 6:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, wherein execution of the instructions by the hardware processor to select, from the first set of multiple stored videos, via the selection module, the first set of videos of multiple videos from the first set of multiple videos cause the hardware processor to: select, from the stored videos, via the selection module, a simultaneous judging set comprising at least two videos, wherein the selection module is configured to select different simultaneous judging sets for different voting users; wherein the first presentation portion is for presenting the videos in the simultaneous judging set in a first sequence, and the votes represent preferences for a currently-playing video with respect to a video played immediately before the currently-playing video.
Claim 7:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 6, wherein execution of the instructions by the hardware processor to generate a post leaderboard data structure cause the hardware processor to: calculate scores for the videos in the first set of multiple videos that are a function of at least one of: the votes for a given video, and the votes for videos other than the given video.
Claim 7:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 6, wherein execution of the instructions by the hardware processor to generate a post leaderboard data structure cause the hardware processor to: calculating scores for the videos in the first set of multiple videos that are a function of at least one of: the votes for a given video, and the votes for videos other than the given video.
Claim 8:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further caused to: conduct multiple contests with videos including one or more of the multiple videos; generate a user leaderboard data structure representing a list of the voting users ordered according to votes received from the voting users for the videos in the multiple contests; and transmit to the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the user leaderboard data structure and a third electronic user interface portion comprising a third presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the user leaderboard data structure.
Claim 8:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further caused to: conduct multiple contests with videos including one or more of the multiple videos; generate a user leaderboard data structure representing a list of the voting users ordered according to votes received from the voting users for the videos in the multiple contests; and transmit to the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the user leaderboard data structure and a third electronic user interface portion comprising a third presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the user leaderboard data structure.
Claim 9:
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium encoded with program instructions executable by a hardware processor to perform operations for presenting video submissions to voting users, including a presentation balancing component module comprising a feed algorithm configured to manage the presentation of video submissions within a contest in an attempt to manage the presentation such that the video submissions are seen equally by all voting users in the contest, the program instructions executable by the hardware processor to:
receive, over a network, from multiple client devices of posting users, a first set of multiple videos for the contest;
store the first set of videos in a storage device;
execute the presentation balancing component to manage the presentation, to voting users, of the videos from the first set of videos based on a determination by the feed algorithm, where the feed algorithm is operable to use a stored record of a number of times the video submissions have been seen during the contest and based thereon determine which submissions should be subsequently presented to individual voting users;
transmit, over the network to a client device of a first voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting two or more videos, determined by the presentation balancing component, to be presented simultaneously or in sequence to the first voting user and a first interactive element operable to generate an input comprising a vote for at least one of the two or more videos;
receive, over the network, electronic messages representing the votes of the first user; and
generate, for display to voting users, a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of videos ordered according to a number of votes received for the videos.
Claim 10:
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 9, the program instructions executable by the hardware processor further to: establish a submission period during which posting users may submit videos for inclusion in the first set of multiple videos and the voting users may submit votes for the videos; and establish a judging only period during which no users may submit videos for inclusion in the first set of multiple videos and the voting users may submit votes for the videos.
Claim 9:
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium encoded with instructions executable by a hardware processor to perform operations for for-presenting video submissions to voting users, including a selection module comprising an algorithm configured to manage the presentation of video submissions within a contest in an attempt to manage the presentation such that the video submissions are seen equally by all voting users in the contest, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the hardware processor to:
receive, over a network, from multiple client devices of posting users, a first set of multiple videos for the contest;
store the first set of videos in a storage device;
execute the selection module to manage the presentation, to voting users, of the videos from the first set of videos based on a determination by the algorithm, where the algorithm is operable to use a stored record of a number of times the video submissions have been seen during the contest and based thereon determine which submissions should be subsequently presented to individual voting users;
transmit, over the network to a client device of a first voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting two or more videos determined by the selection module, to be presented simultaneously or in sequence to the first voting user a first interactive element operable to generate an input comprising a vote for at least one of the videos in the one of the two or more videos;
receive, over the network, electronic messages representing the votes of the first user; and
generate, for display to voting users, a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of the videos ordered according to a number of votes received for the videos.
Claim 10:
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 9, the hardware processor further caused to: establish a submission period during which posting users may submit videos for inclusion in the first set of multiple videos and the voting users may submit votes for the videos; and establishing a judging only period during which no users may submit videos for inclusion in the set of multiple videos and the voting users may submit votes for the videos.
Claim 11:
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 9, the program instructions executable by the hardware processor to: calculate raw scores for videos in the first set of multiple videos, wherein a raw score for a given video is calculated based on (i) a number of times the given video is seen by the voting users and (ii) a number of votes cast for the given video, wherein the raw score for a given video is calculated by dividing the number of votes cast for the given video by the number of times the given video is seen by the voting users.
Claim 11:
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 9, the hardware processor further caused to: calculate raw scores for videos in the first set of multiple videos, wherein a raw score for a given video is calculated based on (i) a number of times the given video is seen by the voting users and (ii) a number of votes cast for the given video, wherein the raw score for the given video is calculated by dividing the number of votes cast for the given video by the number of times the given video is seen by the voting users.
Claim 12:
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 11, the program instructions executable by the hardware processor further to: calculate strength of schedule (SOS) scores for the videos in the first set of multiple videos based on wins for the videos, wherein a video is accorded a win when the video receives a vote from a voting user over other videos in the first set of videos, and wherein an SOS score for a given video is calculated based on (i) raw scores of other videos in the first set of videos where the given video is accorded a win, (ii) a number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the first set of multiple videos, and (iii) a total number of wins accorded the given video, wherein the SOS score for the given video is calculated by multiplying (i) the raw scores of the other videos in the first set of videos where the given video is accorded a win by (ii) the number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the first set of multiple videos.
Claim 12:
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 11, the instruction further caused to: calculate strength of schedule (SOS) scores for the videos in the first set of multiple videos based on wins for the videos, wherein a video is accorded a win when the video receives a vote from a voting user over other videos in the first set of videos, and wherein an SOS score for a given video is calculated based on (i) raw scores of other videos in the first set of videos where the given video is accorded a win, (ii) a number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the first set of multiple videos, and (iii) a total number of wins accorded the given video, wherein the SOS score for the given video is calculated by multiplying (i) the raw scores of the other videos in the first set of videos where the given video is accorded a win by (ii) the number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the first set of multiple videos.
Claim 13:
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 9, the program instructions executable by the hardware processor further to: calculate final scores for the videos in the first set of multiple videos, wherein a final score for a given video is calculated by adding (i) a raw score for the given video to (ii) a SOS score for the given video; and order the list of the videos in the post leaderboard data structure according to the final scores.
Claim 13:
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 9, the hardware processor further caused to: calculate final scores for videos in the first set of multiple videos, wherein a final score for a given video is calculated based on (i) a raw score for the given video and (ii) an SOS score for the given video, wherein the final score for the given video is calculated by adding (i) the raw score for the given video to (ii) the SOS score for the given video; and order the list of the videos in the post leaderboard data structure according to the final scores.
Claim 14:
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the program instructions executable by the hardware processor further to: select, from the stored first set of videos, via the presentation balancing component, a simultaneous judging set comprising at least two videos, wherein the presentation balancing component is configured to select different simultaneous judging sets for different voting users; wherein the first presentation portion is for presenting the videos in the simultaneous judging set in a first sequence, and votes represent preferences for a currently-playing video with respect to a video played immediately before the currently-playing video.
Claim 14:
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein execution of the instructions by the hardware processor to select, from the stored fist set of videos, via the selection module, the one or more subsets of multiple videos from the set of multiple videos cause the hardware processor to: select, from the stored videos, via the selection module, a simultaneous judging set comprising at least two videos, wherein the selection module is configured to select different simultaneous judging sets for different voting users; wherein the first presentation portion is for presenting the videos in the simultaneous judging set in a first sequence, and the votes represent preferences for a currently-playing video with respect to a video played immediately before the currently-playing video.
Claim 15:
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein the program instructions to generate a post leaderboard data structure are executed by the hardware to: calculate scores for the videos in the set of multiple videos that are a function of at least one of: the votes for a given video, and the votes for videos other than the given video.
Claim 15:
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 14, wherein execution of the instructions by the hardware processor are caused to: calculate scores for the videos in the set of multiple videos that are a function of at least one of: the votes for a given video, and the votes for videos other than the given video.
Claim 16:
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 9, the program instructions executable by the hardware processor to: conduct multiple contests with videos including one or more of the multiple videos; generate a user leaderboard data structure representing a list of the voting users ordered according to votes received from the voting users for the videos in the multiple contests; and transmit to the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the user leaderboard data structure and a third electronic user interface portion comprising a third presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the user leaderboard data structure.
Claim 16:
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 9, the hardware processor further caused to: conduct multiple contests with videos including one or more of the multiple videos; generate a user leaderboard data structure representing a list of the voting users ordered according to votes received from the voting users for the videos in the multiple contests; and transmit to the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the user leaderboard data structure and a third electronic user interface portion comprising a third presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the user leaderboard data structure.
Claim 17:
A computer-implemented method for presenting video submissions to voting users, including a presentation balancing component module comprising a feed algorithm configured to manage the presentation of video submissions within a contest in an attempt to manage the presentation such that the video submissions are seen equally by all voting users in the contest, the computer-implemented method being performed by one or more processors programmed with program instructions comprising a balancing component module which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:
receiving, over a network, from multiple client devices of posting users, a first set of multiple videos;
storing the first set of videos in a storage device;
executing the presentation balancing component to manage the presentation, to voting users, of the videos from the first set of videos based on a determination by the feed algorithm, where the feed algorithm is operable to use a stored record of a number of times the video submissions have been seen during the contest and based thereon determine which submissions should be subsequently presented to individual voting users;
transmitting, over the network to the client device of a first voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting two or more videos, determined by the presentation balancing component, to be presented simultaneously or in sequence to the first voting user and a first interactive element operable to generate an input comprising a vote by the first user for least one of the two or more videos;
receiving, over the network, electronic messages representing the votes of the first user; and
generating, for display to voting users, a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of the videos ordered according to a number of votes received for the videos.
Claim 17:
A computer-implemented method for presenting video submissions to voting users, including a selection module comprising an algorithm configured to manage the presentation of video submissions within a contest in an attempt to manage the presentation such that the video submissions are seen equally by all voting users in the contes, the method comprising:
receiving, over a network, from multiple client devices of posting users, a first set of multiple videos;
storing the first set of videos in a storage device;
executing the selection module to manage the presentation, to voting users, of the videos from the first set of videos based on a determination by the algorithm, where the algorithm is operable to use a stored record of a number of times the video submissions have been seen during the contest and based thereon determine which submissions should be subsequently presented to individual voting users;
transmitting, over the network to a client device of a first voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting two or more videos determined by the selection module, to be presented simultaneously or in sequence to the first voting user a first interactive element operable to generate an input comprising a vote by the first user for at least one of the two or more videos;
receiving, over the network, electronic messages representing the votes of the first user; and
generating, for display to voting users, a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of videos ordered according to a number of votes received for the videos.
Claim 18:
The computer-implemented method of claim 17, further comprising: establishing a submission period during which posting users may submit videos for inclusion in the first set of multiple videos and the voting users may submit votes for the videos; and establishing a judging only period during which no users may submit videos for inclusion in the first set of multiple videos and the voting users may submit votes for the videos.
Claim 18:
The computer-implemented method of claim 17, further comprising: establishing a submission period during which posting users may submit videos for inclusion in the first set of multiple videos and the voting users may submit votes for the videos; and establishing a judging only period during which no users may submit videos for inclusion in the first set of multiple videos and the voting users may submit votes for the videos.
Claim 19:
The computer-implemented method of claim 17, further comprising: calculating raw scores for videos in the first set of multiple videos, wherein a raw score for a given video is calculated based on (i) a number of times the given video is seen by the voting users and (ii) a number of votes cast for the given video, wherein the raw score for the given video is calculated by dividing the number of votes cast for the given video by the number of times the given video is seen by the voting users.
Claim 19:
The computer-implemented method of claim 17, further comprising: calculating raw scores for videos in the first set of multiple videos, wherein a raw score for a given video is calculated based on (i) a number of times the given video is seen by the voting users and (ii) a number of votes cast for the given video, wherein the raw score for the given video is calculated by dividing the number of votes cast for the given video by the number of times the given video is seen by the voting users.
Claim 20:
The computer-implemented method of claim 19, further comprising: calculating strength of schedule (SOS) scores for the videos in the first set of multiple videos based on wins for the videos, wherein a video is accorded a win when the video receives a vote from a voting user over other videos in the first set of videos, and wherein an SOS score for a given video is calculated based on (i) raw scores of other videos in the first set of videos where the given video is accorded a win, (ii) a number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the first set of multiple videos, and (iii) a total number of wins accorded the given video, wherein the SOS score for the given video is calculated by multiply (i) the raw scores of the other videos in the first set of videos where the given video is accorded a win by (ii) the number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the first set of multiple videos.
Claim 20:
The computer-implemented method of claim 19, further comprising: calculating strength of schedule (SOS) scores for the videos in the first set of multiple videos based on wins for the videos, wherein a video is accorded a win when the video receives a vote from a voting user over other videos in the first set of videos, and wherein an SOS score for a given video is calculated based on (i) raw scores of other videos in the first set of videos where the given video is accorded a win, (ii) a number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the first set of multiple videos, and (iii) a total number of wins accorded the given video, wherein the SOS score for the given video is calculated by multiply (i) the raw scores of the other videos in the first set of videos where the given video is accorded a win by (ii) the number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the first set of multiple videos.
Claim 21:
The computer-implemented method of claim 17, further comprising: calculating final scores for the videos in the first set of multiple videos, wherein a final score for a given video is calculated based on (i) a raw score for the given video and (ii) an SOS score for the given video, wherein the final score for the given video is calculated by adding (i) the raw score for the given video to (ii) the SOS score for the given video; and ordering the list of the videos in the post leaderboard data structure according to the final scores.
Claim 21:
The computer-implemented method of claim 17, further comprising: calculating final scores for videos in the first set of multiple videos, wherein a final score for a given video is calculated based on (i) a raw score for the given video and (ii) an SOS score for the given video, wherein a final score for the given video is calculated by adding (i) the raw score for the given video to (ii) the SOS score for the given video; and ordering the list of the videos in the post leaderboard data structure according to the final scores.
Claim 22:
The computer-implemented method of claim 17, wherein selecting, from the first set of stored videos, via the balancing component module, one or more subsets of multiple videos from the set of multiple videos comprises: selecting, from the stored videos, via the balancing component module, a simultaneous judging set comprising at least two videos, wherein the balancing component module is configured to select different simultaneous judging sets for different voting users; wherein the first presentation portion is for presenting the videos in the simultaneous judging set in a first sequence, and votes represent preferences for a currently-playing video with respect to a video played immediately before the currently-playing video.
Claim 22:
The computer-implemented method of claim 17, wherein selecting, from the first set of stored videos, via the selection module, the first set of videos of multiple videos from the first set of multiple videos comprises : selecting, from the stored videos, via the selection module, a simultaneous judging set comprising at least two videos, wherein the selection module is configured to select different simultaneous judging sets for different voting users; wherein the first presentation portion is for presenting the videos in the simultaneous judging set in a first sequence, and the votes represent preferences for a currently-playing video with respect to a video played immediately before the currently-playing video.
Claim 23:
The computer-implemented method of claim 17, further comprising: conducting multiple contests with videos including one or more of the multiple videos; generating a user leaderboard data structure representing a list of the voting users ordered according to votes received from the voting users for the videos in the multiple contests; and providing, over the network, for display by the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the user leaderboard data structure and a third electronic user interface portion comprising a third presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the user leaderboard data structure.
Claim 23:
The computer-implemented method of claim 17, further comprising: conducting multiple contests with videos including one or more of the multiple videos; generating a user leaderboard data structure representing a list of the voting users ordered according to votes received from the voting users for the videos in the multiple contests; and providing, over the network, for display by the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the user leaderboard data structure and a third electronic user interface portion comprising a third presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the user leaderboard data structure.
Claim 27:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, wherein the hardware processor further caused to: receive, over the network, from the client device of the first voting user, a presentation confirmation message indicating that at least one video identified in the presentation message was presented via the first presentation portion; and update, based on the presentation confirmation message, a presentation history data structure by incrementing at least one presentation count for the at least one identified video indicated as presented.
Claim 25:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, wherein the hardware processor further caused to: receive, over the network, from a client device of the first voting user, a presentation confirmation message indicating that at least one video identified in the presentation message was presented via the first presentation portion; and update, based on the presentation confirmation message, a presentation history data structure by incrementing at least one presentation count for the at least one identified video indicated as presented.
Claim 28:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, wherein the hardware processor further caused to: transmit, over the network, to the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the post leaderboard data structure and user interface data defining a second electronic user interface portion comprising a second presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the post leaderboard data structure.
Claim 26:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, wherein the hardware processor further caused to: transmit, over the network, to the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the post leaderboard data structure and user interface data defining a second electronic user interface portion comprising a second presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the post leaderboard data structure.
Claim 29:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, wherein the hardware processor further caused to: select, from the stored videos, via the balancing component module, for the voting users, respective subsets of two or more videos from the first set of multiple videos for presentation to the voting users, wherein at least one first subset selected for the first voting user is different than at least one second subset selected for a second voting user; and manage an overall selection of the respective subsets such that, during the contest, each video in the first set of multiple videos is selected for inclusion in the first and the second subset an equal number of times as each other video in the first set of multiple videos.
Claim 27:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, wherein the hardware processor further caused to: select, from the first set of stored videos, via the selection module, for the voting users, respective subsets of two or more videos from the first set of multiple videos for presentation to the voting users, wherein at least one first subset selected for the first voting user is different than at least one second subset selected for a second voting user; and manage an overall selection of the respective subsets such that, during the contest, each video in the first set of multiple videos is selected for inclusion in the first and the second subset an equal number of times as each other video in the first set of multiple videos.
Claim 30:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, wherein execution of the instructions by the hardware processor further causes the hardware processor to: store, in the storage device, for the first voting user of the voting users, a record identifying videos from the first set of multiple videos that have been presented to the first voting user; determine at least one video to be subsequently presented to the first voting user based on the record; and tally the votes by calculating a first score for a first video and a second score for a second video, the first video and the second video being from the first set of multiple videos, wherein, when the first video and the second video are presented for voting via the first presentation portion, (i) the first score is a function of at least one of votes cast for the first video and votes cast for the second video, and (ii) the second score is a function of at least one of votes cast for the second video and votes cast for the first video, and wherein the list of videos in the post leaderboard data structure is ordered by ordering at least the first video and the second video according to the first score and the second score and ordering other videos of the first set of multiple videos according to at least one other additional score calculated for another video of the first set.
Claim 28:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, wherein execution of the instructions by the hardware processor further causes the hardware processor to: store, in the storage device, for the first voting user of the voting users, a record identifying videos from the first set of multiple videos that have been presented to the first voting user; determine at least one video to be subsequently presented to the first voting user based on the record; and tally the votes by calculating a first score for a first video and a second score for a second video, the first video and the second video being from the first set of multiple videos, wherein, when the first video and the second video are presented for voting via the first presentation portion, (i) the first score is a function of at least one of votes cast for the first video and votes cast for the second video, and (ii) the second score is a function of at least one of votes cast for the second video and votes cast for the first video, and wherein the list of videos in the post leaderboard data structure is ordered by ordering at least the first video and the second video according to the first score and the second score and ordering other videos of the first set of multiple videos according to at least one other additional score calculated for another video of the first set.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 recites “receive, over the network, from a client device of the first voting user, a presentation confirmation message indicating that at least one video identified in the presentation message was presented via the first presentation portion; and update, based on the presentation confirmation message, a presentation history data structure by incrementing at least one presentation count for the at least one identified video indicated as presented.” The specification is silent with these limitations. The specification discloses receiving electronic messages representing the votes from the client devices of the voting users (see paragraphs [0037], [0058], and [0070] of the specification). The specification does not disclose receiving, from the client device of the first voting user, a presentation confirmation message indicating that at least one video identified in the presentation message was presented via the first presentation portion, and updating, based on the presentation confirmation message, a presentation history data structure by incrementing at least one presentation count for the at least one identified video indicated as presented.
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 1-23 and 25-28 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite “execute the selection module to manage the presentation, to voting users, of the videos from the first set of videos based on a determination by the algorithm, where the algorithm is operable to use a stored record of a number of times the video submissions have been seen during the contest and based thereon determine which submissions should be subsequently presented to individual voting users.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the videos” in the claims.
Claims 1, 9, and 19 recite “receive, over the network, electronic messages representing the votes of the first user.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the votes” in the claims.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite “execute the selection module to manage the presentation, to voting users, of the videos from the first set of videos based on a determination by the algorithm … generating, for display to voting users, a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of videos ordered according to a number of votes received for the videos.” It is unclear whether the videos are the videos from the first set of videos or the videos of a list of videos.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite “receive, over a network, from multiple client devices of posting users, a first set of multiple videos for the contest; … execute the selection module to manage the presentation, to voting users, of the videos from the first set of videos based on a determination by the feed algorithm, … transmit, over the network to a client device of a first voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting two or more videos, determined by the selection module, to be presented simultaneously or in sequence to the first voting user.” It is unclear whether the two or more videos are part of the first set of multiple videos for contest or not.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite “transmit, over the network to a client device of a first voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting two or more videos, determined by the selection module, to be presented simultaneously or in sequence to the first voting user a first interactive element operable by the given voting user to generate an input representing comprising a vote by the first user for at least one of the two or more videos.” It is unclear whether the two or more videos are part of the first set of multiple videos for contest or not.
Claim 6 recites “wherein execution of the instructions by the hardware processor to select, from the first set of multiple stored videos, via the selection module, the first set of videos of multiple videos from the first set of multiple videos cause the hardware processor to.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first set of videos of multiple videos” in the claim.
Claims 8 and 16 recite “transmit to the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users” in the claims.
Claim 17 recites: “A computer-implemented method for presenting video submissions to voting users, including a selection module comprising an algorithm configured to manage the presentation of video submissions within a contest in an attempt to manage the presentation such that the video submissions are seen equally by all voting users in the contest, the method comprising.” The manner of a method including a selection module is unclear.
Claim 25 recites “receive, over the network, from a client device of the first voting user, a presentation confirmation message indicating that at least one video identified in the presentation message was presented via the first presentation portion.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the presentation message” in the claim. Is the presentation message a presentation confirmation message?
Claim 26 recites “transmit, over the network, to the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users” in the claim.
Claim 28 recites “tally the votes by calculating a first score for a first video and a second score for a second video, the first video and the second video being from the first set of multiple videos.” It is unclear what the votes refer to. Claim 28 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites “receive, over the network, electronic messages representing the votes of the first user; and generate, for display to voting users, a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of videos ordered according to a number of votes received for the videos.”
Claim 28 recites “wherein the list of videos in the post leaderboard data structure is ordered by ordering at least the first video and the second video according to the first score and the second score and ordering other videos of the first set of multiple videos according to at least one other additional score calculated for another video of the first set.” First, it is unclear whether the first set is the first set of multiple videos. Additionally, what is unclear is the manner of ordering other videos according to one additional score.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-23, and 25-28 are rejected because they depend on the rejected independent claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively.
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 1-23 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In this instance, claims 1-8 and 25-28 are directed to a system, claims 9-16 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, and claims 17-23 are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1-23 and 25-28 fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 as a whole is directed to managing a video contest. In particular, the claim recites receiving videos, storing videos, managing the presentation of the videos, presenting two or more videos, receiving votes, and generating a leaderboard. In other words, the claim falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in Step 2A Prong One (MPEP 2106.04(a)(d)) because the claim involves the steps for a voting process, which is a social activity and related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite the abstract idea while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites “[a] social media-based video contest management system for presenting video submissions to voting users, including a selection module comprising an algorithm configured to manage the presentation of video submissions within a contest in an attempt to manage the presentation such that the video submissions are seen equally by all voting users in the contest, the system comprising: a hardware processor; and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium encoded with instructions executable by the hardware processor, which, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the hardware processor stored on the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium to: receive, over a network, from multiple client devices of posting users, a fist set of multiple videos for contest; store the first set of videos in a storage device; execute the selection module to manage the presentation, to voting users, of the videos from the first set of videos based on a determination by the algorithm, where the algorithm is operable to use a stored record of a number of times the video submissions have been seen during the contest and based thereon determine which submissions should be subsequently presented to individual voting users; transmit, over the network to a client device of a first voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting two or more videos determined by the selection module, to be presented simultaneously or in sequence to the first voting user a first interactive element operable to generate an input comprising a vote by the first voting user for at least one of the two or more videos; receive, over the network, electronic messages representing the votes for the first voting user; and generate for display to voting users, a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of videos ordered according to a number of votes received for the videos.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two (MPEP 2106.04(d)), the non-underlined additional elements of claim 1, such as the use of a social media-based video contest management system including a selection module and comprising a hardware processor and a non-transitory machine-readable storage, an algorithm, a network, multiple client devices of posting users, a storage device, a client device, and a first electronic user interface portion, are merely used as tools to perform the abstract idea. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps of receiving videos, storing videos, managing the presentation of the videos, presenting two or more videos, receiving votes, and generating a leaderboard. The use of computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements of a network, multiple client devices of posting users, a storage device, and a client device are being used in their ordinary capacities. Additionally, the additional element of a selection module comprising an algorithm, implemented as software, is a computer component for performing the step of presenting videos evenly, which is part of managing a video contest, the identified abstract idea. Presenting videos by following predefined rules and maintaining a presenting history are business procedures and part of the voting process. Presenting videos evenly based on the stored/updated history data is merely an improvement of the cited abstract idea itself, but it does not present any improvements in the functioning of a computer or in any other technology or technical field. The particular electronic user interface portions are also recited as regular user interfaces to display videos and voting results for users. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine; the claim does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful ways beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), using a social media-based video contest management system including a selection module and comprising a hardware processor and a non-transitory machine-readable storage, an algorithm, a network, multiple client devices of posting users, a storage device, a client device, and a first electronic user interface portion, to perform the steps of receiving videos, storing videos, managing the presentation of the videos, presenting two or more videos, receiving votes, and generating a leaderboard, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept beyond the recited abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the additional elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to actions required to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of a network, multiple client devices of posting users, a storage device, and a client device are being used in their ordinary capacities. Furthermore, the additional element of a selection module comprising an algorithm, implemented as software, is a computer component for performing the step of presenting videos evenly, which is part of managing a video contest, the identified abstract idea. Presenting videos by following predefined rules and maintaining a presenting history are business procedures and part of the voting process. Presenting videos evenly based on the stored/updated history data is merely an improvement of the cited abstract idea itself, but it does not present any improvements in the functioning of a computer or in any other technology or technical field. The particular electronic user interface portions are also recited as regular user interfaces to display videos and voting results for users. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as being directed toward patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 9 and 17 recite the abstract idea similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 1. Claims 9 and 17 do not recite any new additional elements that are not considered in connection with claim 1. Accordingly, claims 9 and 17 are rejected as being directed toward patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-23, and 25-28 have also been considered for subject-matter eligibility. However, these claims fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 2, 10, and 18 recite the abstract idea of establishing a submission period during which posting users may submit videos for inclusion in the first set of multiple videos and the voting users may submit votes for the videos; and establishing a judging only period during which no users may submit videos for inclusion in the first set of multiple videos and the voting users may submit votes for the videos, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional element of a hardware processor does not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3, 11, and 19 recite the abstract idea of calculating raw scores for videos in the first set of multiple videos, wherein the raw score for a given video is calculated based on (i) a number of times the given video is seen by the voting users and (ii) a number of votes cast for the given video, wherein the raw score for a given video is calculated by dividing the number of votes cast for the given video by the number of times the given video is seen by the voting users, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. No new additional elements are identified. The additional element of a hardware processor does not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 4, 12, and 20 recite the abstract idea of calculating SOS scores for the videos in the first set of multiple videos based on wins for the videos, wherein a video is accorded a win when the video receives a vote from a voting user over other videos in the first set of videos, and wherein the SOS score for a given video is calculated based on (i) the raw scores of other videos in the first set of videos where the given video is accorded a win, (ii) the number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the first set of multiple videos, and (iii) a total number of wins accorded the given video, wherein the SOS score for the given video is calculated by multiplying (i) the raw scores of the other videos in the first set of videos where the given video is accorded a win by (ii) the number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the first set of multiple videos, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. The additional element of a hardware processor does not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 5, 13, and 21 recite the abstract idea of calculating final scores for the videos in the first set of multiple videos, wherein the final score for a given video is calculated based on (i) the raw score for the given video and (ii) the SOS score for the given video; and ordering the list of the videos in the post leaderboard data structure according to the final scores, wherein the final scores for the given video is calculated by adding (i) the raw score for the given video to (ii) the SOS score for the given video; and ordering the list of the videos in the post leaderboard data structure according to the final scores, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. The additional element of a hardware processor does not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6, 14, and 22 recite the abstract idea of selecting, from the stored videos, a simultaneous judging set comprising at least two videos, including selecting different simultaneous judging sets for different voting users; wherein the first presentation portion is for presenting the videos in the simultaneous judging set in a first sequence, and the votes represent preferences for a currently-playing video with respect to a video played immediately before the currently-playing video, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a hardware processor and a selection module do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 15 recite the abstract idea of calculating scores for the videos in the first set of multiple videos that are a function of at least one of: the votes for a given video, and the votes for videos other than the given video, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. The additional element of a hardware processor does not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 8, 16, and 23 recite the abstract ideas of conducting multiple contests with videos including one or more of the multiple videos; generating a user leaderboard data structure representing a list of the voting users ordered according to votes received from the voting users for the videos in the multiple contests; and transmitting the user leaderboard data structure and a portion comprising a third presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the user leaderboard data structure, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a hardware processor, a network, multiple client devices, and a third electronic user interface do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Claim 25 recites the abstract idea of receiving a presentation confirmation message indicating that at least one video identified in the presentation message was presented via the first presentation portion; and updating, based on the presentation confirmation message, a presentation history data structure by incrementing at least one presentation count for the at least one identified video indicated as presented, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a hardware processor, a network, a client device, and a selection module do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 26 recites the abstract idea of transmitting the post leaderboard data structure and user interface data defining a second portion comprising a second presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the post leaderboard data structure, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a hardware processor, a network, multiple client devices, and a second electronic user interface portion do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 27 recites the abstract idea of selecting, from the stored videos for the voting users, respective subsets of two or more videos from the first set of multiple videos for presentation to the voting users, wherein at least one first subset selected for the first voting user is different than at least one second subset selected for a second voting user; and managing an overall selection of the respective subsets such that, during the contest, each video in the first set of multiple videos is selected for inclusion in the first and the second subset an equal number of times as each other video in the first set of multiple videos, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a hardware processor and a selection module do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 28 recites the abstract idea of storing for the first voting user of the voting users, a record identifying videos from the first set of multiple videos that have been presented to the first voting user; determining at least one video to be subsequently presented to the first voting user based on the record; and tallying the votes by calculating a first score for a first video and a second score for a second video, the first video and the second video being from the first set of multiple videos, wherein, when the first video and the second video are presented for voting via the first presentation portion, (i) the first score is a function of at least one of votes cast for the first video and votes cast for the second video, and (ii) the second score is a function of at least one of votes cast for the second video and votes cast for the first video, and wherein the list of videos in the post leaderboard data structure is ordered by ordering at least the first video and the second video according to the first score and the second score and ordering other videos of the first set of multiple videos according to at least one other additional score calculated for another video of the first set, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a hardware processor and a storage device do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-23 and 25-28 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under the double patenting, 112 (a)(b) rejections, and 101 rejection, set forth in this office action.
Reasons for allowability over the prior art:
Cvinar (US 20200065853 A1) discloses a method for conducting a tournament includes activating a competition, receiving video submissions from a plurality of content providers, and presenting one or more subsets of the received videos for the voters. Multiple video submissions can be configured to compete in an expanded head-to-head configuration or expanded bracket of single elimination contests. During the battle stage, voters are presented with a side-by-side view of the seeded videos with the option to vote for either video. Each battle may be open for a period of time or until a threshold number of voters have viewed and voted upon the videos. The winning video of each battle progresses in the tournament, until one winner is declared. A post leaderboard data structure is generated for representing a ranked list.
Haley et al. (US 20210312948 A1) discloses compiling videos into a compilation, where each video is programmatically inserted into the compilation, and the resulting video compilation plays alongside an audio track preferably sourced using a unique identifier for the audio track. Users compete against one another by submitting videos for inclusion in a final video compilation of compilations associated with a select musical composition or song. The system presents one or more video fragments associated with an audio track in a list format, or a ‘leaderboard,’ for allowing users to view and react to the audiovisual sets. The leaderboard presents all videos submitted by users, with the highest-ranked entries presented in order.
Gagnon-Kvale et al. (US 20200252470 A1) discloses a communication server that supports automatic content receipt and distribution. The communication server receives a set of content objects, where a content object of the set is associated with a set of target group identifiers. A content object of the set may include different versions of content for ABn and/or multivariate testing. The communication server generates target segment identifier combinations and distributes versions of messages proportionally to each user identifier associated with the target segment combinations. The server generates engagement metrics corresponding to interaction by the user identifiers with the messages. The metrics may be generated for each message version, each group of users, and each group combination. If the set of content objects includes a content object with multiple versions of content data for AB or ABn testing, then the server evenly or proportionally distributes the content within each group combination.
Bostick et al. (US 20160142672 A1) discloses evenly distributing objects within video content from multiple video feeds across multiple, independent screen display elements. The video feeds are distributed across a plurality of video display elements as a function of the determined dimensions of the identified positions of the objects of interest, to evenly distribute the objects of interest across a cumulative available screen area provided by the plurality of video display elements, wherein the distributing includes differentially distributing portions of one of the video feeds across more than one of the plurality of screen display elements.
The cited references, either alone or in combination, fail to disclose the specific combination of claim limitations recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 17.
Conclusion
The prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Jordan et al. (US 20220021938 A1) discloses a video-based competition platform that enables users of electronic communication devices to create, compete, view, and vote in video-based competitions.
Morgia et al. (US 20130060605 A1) discloses dividing the received ideas into groups and providing each group to a participant for voting.
Kikkawa et al. (EP 2393246 A1) discloses calculating an evaluation score by multiplying two different values.
Vasquez (US 20230275972 A1) discloses monitoring each of the presented multimedia contents and determining the play time duration for each of the multimedia contents.
The 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). The 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 CHUNLING DING, whose telephone number is (571)270-3605. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 7:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an 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, Neha Patel, can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
/CHUNLING DING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights