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 a first office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks filed with an RCE on December 23, 2025.
Claims 1-24 have been amended.
Claims 1-24 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 most of the claim objections. The applicant has been advised to refer to the claim objection 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 of a video contest. In particular, the claim recites receiving videos, storing videos, selecting one or more subsets of videos, providing the selected videos, receiving votes, generating a leaderboard, and providing the 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 is 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). Evenly selecting one or more subsets of videos is a business procedure as part of managing of a video contest, an identified abstract idea. Additionally, selecting one or more subsets of videos evenly is merely an improvement for 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. The particular electronic user interface portions are recited as regular user interfaces to display videos and voting results for users.
The applicant contends that the claims integrated the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional elements of a social media-based video contest management system comprising a hardware processor and a non-transitory machine-readable storage, a network, multiple client devices of posting users, a storage device, a selection module, a client device, a first electronic user interface portion, a second electronic user interface portion, and multiple client devices of the voting users of claim 1 are merely used as tools to perform the identified abstract idea. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps of receiving videos, storing videos, selecting one or more subsets of videos, providing the selected videos, receiving votes, generating a leaderboard, and providing the leaderboard. The additional element of a selection module, whether implemented as software, firmware, or hardware, is a computer component for performing the step of selecting videos evenly, which is part of managing of a video contest, an identified abstract idea. Additionally, as discussed above by the examiner, evenly selecting one or more subsets of videos is merely an improvement for 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. 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. The particular electronic user interface portions are recited as regular user interfaces to display videos and voting results for users. Selecting of one or more subsets of videos evenly is a business procedure as part of managing of a video contest, an identified abstract idea. These additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not pertain to an improvement 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. The independent claim 1 of Desjardines reflects the improvement: "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task," and one improvement identified in the specification is to “effectively learn new tasks in succession whilst protecting knowledge about previous tasks.” On the other hand, claim 1 of the instant application recites managing of a video contest via the steps of receiving videos, storing videos, selecting one or more subsets of videos, providing the selected videos, receiving votes, generating a leaderboard, and providing the leaderboard. The identified additional elements are merely used as tools to perform the identified abstract idea. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 comprising a hardware processor and a non-transitory machine-readable storage, a network, multiple client devices of posting users, a storage device, a selection module, a client device, a first electronic user interface portion, a second electronic user interface portion, and multiple client devices of the voting users 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 comprising a hardware processor and a non-transitory machine-readable storage, a network, multiple client devices of posting users, a storage device, a selection module, a client device, a first electronic user interface portion, a second electronic user interface portion, and multiple client devices of the voting users, to perform the steps of receiving videos, storing videos, selecting one or more subsets of videos, providing the selected videos, receiving votes, generating a leaderboard, and providing the leaderboard, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These steps correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recites the concept of managing of 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 applicant contends that Cvinar fails to teach or suggest “select, from the stored videos, via a selection module of the social media-based video content management system, one or more subsets of multiple videos from the set of multiple videos, wherein the selection module is configured to manage an overall selection of the subsets of multiple videos such that an overall number of times a given video in the set of multiple videos is selected is equitable with respect to a number of times other videos in the set of multiple videos are selected and to manage an order in which the overall selection of the one or more subsets of the multiple videos are selected for presentation.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the examiner would like to point out that claim 1 of the instant application does not recite “to manage an order in which the overall selection of the one or more subsets of the multiple videos are selected for presentation.”
Cvinar, the primary reference, discloses a video-tournament platform for managing the equitable selection and displaying videos to be voted on by users. Assigning seed to the videos is performed in the ranking stage, and the ranking stage will not be needed if the number of videos works with a single-elimination-style tournament. See paragraph [0103], “[t]he ranking stage can occur after receipt of a number of video entries or after a period of time…. The ranking stage is optional”; paragraph [0112], “[e]ach user is then prompted to upload a video within an allotted period of time, (e.g., 30 minutes, 1 hour, 1 day, or the like), or to begin streaming a live video…. In the event that the number of participants in a Challenge Battle does not become a number that works with a single-elimination-style tournament, the Ranking stage, described above, can be used to settle the total number of participants into an amount that works with a single-elimination-style-tournament”; and paragraphs [0114]-[0115], “[m]ultiple video submissions can be configured to compete in an expanded head-to-head-to-head configuration, or expanded bracket of single elimination contests (e.g., 2/4/8/16/32, etc.), or Ranking stage, as described above.” These citations indicate that all videos will participate in the tournament without the ranking stage (or “seeding”) if the number of videos works with a single-elimination-style tournament. The head-to-head and/or single elimination contests in Cvinar indicate that each video is selected for inclusion only in one of the subsets for the first round of a video tournament. Furthermore, by the broadest reasonable interpretation, a selection module may be software/instructions executed by the processor(s) to perform the defined functionalities. The software/instructions that perform the same steps as claimed could be interpreted as a selection module. Cvinar further discloses that the evenly selected one or more subsets of videos are arranged in an order based on the tournament structure and presented to the voters (see Fig. 12 and paragraph [0106]). Therefore, Cvinar teaches “select, from the stored videos, via a selection module of the social media-based video content management system, one or more subsets of multiple videos from the set of multiple videos, wherein the selection module is configured to manage an overall selection of the subsets of multiple videos such that an overall number of times a given video in the set of multiple videos is selected is equitable with respect to a number of times other videos in the set of multiple videos are selected and to manage an order in which the overall selection of the one or more subsets of the multiple videos are selected for presentation.”
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 21, these claims depend on claims 1, 9, and 17, respectfully. A raw score could be interpreted as any scores because a raw score is not defined in claims 1, 9, or 21. Cvinar discloses determining a final score based on a sum of two calculated scores (see equation (1) in paragraph [0104]). One of the calculated scores could be interpreted as a raw score. Costin, an analogous art of calculating scores for a tournament, discloses calculating a strength of schedule (SOS) score and calculating the final score based on the SOS score and other scores (see Abstract, paragraphs [0032]-[0033], and paragraphs [0035]-[0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Costin in the Cvinar system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the accuracy of video ranking in the Cvinar system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to calculate the final score based on an SOS score for each candidate in the tournament and other scores, so that the winners can be selected based on more accurate representation of the candidate.
Regarding claim 24, the newly included limitation discloses “wherein the balancing component module is configured to monitor, in real time, a number of times videos in the one or more subsets of the set of multiple videos has been presented to voting users and, based on this monitoring, select for future presentation those videos that have been presented fewer times during the contest period.” The cited balancing component module is not positively recited as a module comprised in the social media-based video contest management system. Therefore, the balancing component module is out of scope of the claimed social media-based video contest management system and does not have patentable weight.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “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.” The underlined part, “stored on the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium,” should be removed.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the selection module is configured to manage an overall selection of the subsets of multiple videos such that an overall number of times a given video in the set of multiple is selected is equitable with respect to a number of times other videos in the set of multiple videos are selected.” The phrasing, “the set of multiple is selected,” should be changed to “the set of multiple videos is selected.”
Claim 22 recites “wherein the instructions caused to select, from the stored videos, via the selection module, the one or more subsets of multiple videos from the set of multiple videos comprise instructions caused to.” This limitation should be changed to “wherein selecting, from the stored videos, via the selection module, the one or more subsets of multiple videos from the set of multiple videos comprises.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a selection module in claims 1 and 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification describes: “In part, this is accomplished by using a presentation-balancing component which is configured to manage the presentation of submissions to voters in an attempt to balance the number of times a video is presented for vote during a contest” (see paragraph [0005] of the specification), and “[t]his and other modules may include, by way of example, components, such as software components, object-oriented software components, class components and task components, processes, functions, attributes, procedures, subroutines, segments of program code, drivers, firmware, microcode, circuitry, data, databases, data structures, tables, arrays, and variables. In general, the word ‘component,’ ‘engine,’ ‘system,’ ‘database,’ ‘data store,’ and the like, as used herein, can refer to logic embodied in hardware or firmware, or to a collection of software instructions” (see paragraphs [0085]-[0086] of the specification). Therefore, a selection module may be software, firmware, or hardware based on the specification.
If the applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-24 of this application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 and 26 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 managing the equitable selection and display of videos to be voted on by users, 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 set of multiple videos;
store the received videos in a storage device;
for voting users: balance, from the stored videos, via a balancing component module of the social media-based video contest management system, a selection of one or more subsets of multiple videos from the set of multiple videos, wherein the balancing component module is configured to manage an overall selection of the one or more subsets of multiple videos such that an overall number of times a given video in the set of multiple videos is selected is equitable with respect to a number of times other videos in the set of multiple videos are selected and to manage an order in which the overall selection of the one or more subsets of the multiple videos are selected for presentation; and
provide, over the network, for display by a client device of a given voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting videos in one of the one or more subsets selected by the balancing component module for the given voting user, and a first interactive element operable by the given voting user to generate an input representing a vote for at least one of the videos in the one of the one or more subsets;
receive, over the network, from multiple client devices of the voting users, electronic messages representing votes;
generate a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of videos ordered according to the received votes; and
providing, over the network, for display by the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the post leaderboard data structure and a second electronic user interface portion comprising a second presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the post leaderboard data structure.
Claim 1:
A social media-based video contest management system for managing the equitable selection and display of videos to be voted on by users, 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 set of multiple videos;
store the received videos in a storage device;
for voting users: select, from the stored videos, via a selection module of the social media-based video contest management system, one or more subsets of multiple videos from the set of multiple videos, wherein the selection module is configured to manage an overall selection of the subsets of multiple videos such that an overall number of times a given video in the set of multiple videos is selected is equitable with respect to a number of times other videos in the set of multiple videos are selected; and
provide, over the network, for display by a client device of a given voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting videos in one of the one or more subsets selected by the selection module for the given voting user, and a first interactive element operable by the given voting user to generate an input representing a vote for at least one of the videos in the one of the one or more subsets;
receive, over the network, from multiple client devices of the voting users, electronic messages representing votes;
generate a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of videos ordered according to the received votes; and
provide, over the network, for display by the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the post leaderboard data structure and a second electronic user interface portion comprising a second presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the post leaderboard data structure.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 the other videos in the subset, and wherein an SOS score for a given video is calculated based on (i) raw scores of other videos in the one or more subsets where the given video is accorded a win, (ii) a number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the 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 one or more subsets 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 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 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 the other videos in the subset, and wherein an SOS score for a given video is calculated based on (i) raw scores of other videos in the one or more subsets where the given video is accorded a win, (ii) a number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the 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 one or more subsets 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 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 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 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 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 stored videos, via the balancing 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 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 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 stored 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 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 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 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 provide, 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 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 provide, 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 9:
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium encoded with program instructions executable by a hardware processor to perform operations for managing an equitable selection and display of videos to be voted on by users, the program instructions executable by the hardware processor to:
receive, over a network, from multiple client devices of posting users, a set of multiple videos;
store the received videos in a storage device;
for voting users: balance, from the stored videos, via a balancing component module, a selection of one or more subsets of multiple videos from the set of multiple videos, wherein the balancing component module is configured to manage an overall selection of the one or more subsets of multiple videos such that an overall number of times a given video in the set of multiple videos is selected is equitable with respect to a number of times other videos in the set of multiple videos are selected and to manage an order in which the overall selection of the one or more subsets of the multiple videos are selected for presentation; and
provide, over the network, for display by a client device of a given voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting videos in one of the one or more subsets selected by the balancing component module for the given voting user, and a first interactive element operable by the given voting user to generate an input representing a vote for at least one of the videos in the one of the one or more subsets;
receive, over the network, from multiple client devices of the voting users, electronic messages representing votes;
generate a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of videos ordered according to the received votes; and
provide, over the network, for display by the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the post leaderboard data structure and a second electronic user interface portion comprising a second presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the post leaderboard data structure.
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 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 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 managing an equitable selection and display of videos to be voted on by users, wherein the instructions, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the hardware processor to:
receive, over a network, from multiple client devices of posting users, a set of multiple videos;
store the received videos in a storage device;
for voting users: select, from the stored videos, via a selection module of the social media-based video content management system, one or more subsets of multiple videos from the set of multiple videos, wherein the selection module is configured to manage an overall selection of the subsets of multiple videos such that an overall number of times a given video in the set of multiple is selected is equitable with respect to a number of times other videos in the set of multiple videos are selected; and
provide, over the network, for display by a client device of a given voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting videos in one of the one or more subsets selected by the selection module for the given voting user, and a first interactive element operable by the given voting user to generate an input representing a vote for at least one of the videos in the one of the one or more subsets;
receive, over the network, from multiple client devices of the voting users, electronic messages representing votes;
generate a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of the videos ordered according to the received votes; and
provide, over the network, for display by the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the post leaderboard data structure and a second electronic user interface portion comprising a second presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the post leaderboard data structure.
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 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 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 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 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 the other videos in the subset, and wherein an SOS score for a given video is calculated based on (i) raw scores of other videos in the one or more subsets where the given video is accorded a win, (ii) a number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the 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 one or more subsets 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 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 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 the other videos in the subset, and wherein an SOS score for a given video is calculated based on (i) raw scores of other videos in the one or more subsets where the given video is accorded a win, (ii) a number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the 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 one or more subsets 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 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 set of multiple videos, 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 13:
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 9, the hardware processor further caused to: calculate final scores for videos in the set of multiple videos, wherein the 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 to balance, from the stored videos, via the balancing component module, the one or more subsets of multiple videos from the set of multiple videos comprise program instructions executable by the hardware processor further to: 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 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 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 provide, 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 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 provide, 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 17:
A computer-implemented method for managing the equitable selection and display of videos to be voted on by users, the method comprising:
receiving, over a network, from multiple client devices of posting users, a set of multiple videos;
storing the received videos in a storage device;
for voting users: balancing, from the stored videos, via a balancing component module, a selection of one or more subsets of multiple videos from the set of multiple videos, wherein the balancing component module is configured to manage an overall selection of the subsets of multiple videos such that an overall number of times a given video in the set of multiple videos is selected is equitable with respect to the number of times other videos in the set of multiple videos are selected and to manage an order in which the overall selection of the one or more subsets of the multiple videos are selected for presentation; and
providing, over the network, for display by a client device of a given voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting the videos in one of the one or more subsets selected by the balancing component module for the given voting user, and a first interactive element operable by the given voting user to generate an input representing a vote for at least one of the videos in the one of the one or more subsets;
receiving, over the network, from multiple client devices of the voting users, electronic messages representing the votes;
generating a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of the videos ordered according to the received votes; and
providing, over the network, for display by the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the post leaderboard data structure and a second electronic user interface portion comprising a second presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the post leaderboard data structure.
Claim 17:
A computer-implemented method for managing the equitable selection and display of videos to be voted on by users, the method comprising:
receiving, over a network, from multiple client devices of posting users, a set of multiple videos;
storing the received videos in a storage device;
for voting users: selecting, from the stored videos, via a selection module of the social media-based video contest management system, one or more subsets of multiple videos from the set of multiple videos, wherein the selection module is configured to manage an overall selection of the subsets of multiple videos such that an overall number of times a given video in the set of multiple videos is selected is equitable with respect to the number of times other videos in the set of multiple videos are selected; and
providing, over the network, for display by a client device of a given voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting the videos in one of the subsets selected by the selection module for the given voting user, and a first interactive element operable by the given voting user to generate an input representing a vote for at least one of the videos in the one of the one or more subsets;
receiving, over the network, from multiple client devices of the voting users, electronic messages representing the votes;
generating a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of videos ordered according to the received votes; and
providing, over the network, for display by the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the post leaderboard data structure and a second electronic user interface portion comprising a second presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the post leaderboard data structure.
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 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 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 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 19:
The computer-implemented method of claim 17, further comprising: calculating raw scores for videos in the 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 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 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 the other videos in the subset, and wherein an SOS score for a given video is calculated based on (i) raw scores of other videos in the one or more subsets where the given video is accorded a win, (ii) a number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the 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 one or more subsets 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 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 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 the other videos in the subset, and wherein an SOS score for a given video is calculated based on (i) raw scores of other videos in the one or more subsets where the given video is accorded a win, (ii) a number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the 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 one or more subsets 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 set of multiple videos.
Claim 21:
The computer-implemented method of claim 17, further comprising: calculating final scores for the videos in the 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 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 stored videos, via the balancing component module, the 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 the instructions caused to select, from the stored videos, via the selection module, the one or more subsets of multiple videos from the set of multiple videos comprise instructions caused to: 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 26:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, wherein the hardware processor further caused to: manage presentation of the one or more subsets of the set of multiple videos, such that the one or more subsets of the set of multiple videos are displayed to the voting users equally with respect to a number of times other videos in the one or more subsets are selected during the social media-based video contest, wherein the balancing component module is configured to monitor, in real time, a number of times videos in the one or more subsets of the set of multiple videos has been presented to voting users and, based on this monitoring, select for future presentation those videos that have been presented fewer times during the contest period.
Claim 24:
The social media-based video contest management system of claim 1, the hardware processor further caused to: manage presentation of the one or more subsets of the set of multiple videos, such that the one or more subsets of the set of multiple videos are displayed to the voting users equally with respect to a number of times other videos in the one or more subsets are selected during a social media-based video contest, wherein the balancing component module is configured to monitor, in real time, a number of times videos in the one or more subsets of the set of multiple videos has been presented to voting users and, based on this monitoring, select for future presentation those videos that have been presented fewer times during the contest period.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 24 are 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.
Claims 1 and 6 recite a selection module for selecting and monitoring one or more subsets of videos. The specification does not provide an adequate structure to perform the claimed functions listed above. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not descried in sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor has possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 24 are rejected because they depend on the rejected independent claim 1.
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.
Claim 1-8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites “wherein the balancing component module is configured to monitor, in real time, a number of times videos in the one or more subsets of the set of multiple videos has been presented to voting users and, based on this monitoring, select for future presentation those videos that have been presented fewer times during the contest period.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the balancing component module” in the claim. Claim 24 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites a selection module, not a balancing component module.
Claims 1 and 6 recite a selection module for selecting and monitoring one or more subsets of videos.
The specification describes: "In part, this is accomplished by using a presentation-balancing component which is configured to manage the presentation of submissions to voters in an attempt to balance the number of times a video is presented for vote during a contest" (see paragraph [0005] of the specification), and "[t]his and other modules may include, by way of example, components, such as software components, object-oriented software components, class components and task components, processes, functions, attributes, procedures, subroutines, segments of program code, drivers, firmware, microcode, circuitry, data, databases, data structures, tables, arrays, and variables. In general, the word 'ponent,' 'engine,' 'system,' 'database,' 'data store,' and the like, as used herein, can refer to logic embodied in hardware or firmware, or to a collection of software instructions" (see paragraphs [0085]-[0086] of the specification). The specification discloses that a component/module could be implemented as software, firmware, or hardware. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform the claimed functions.
The limitations, which recite a selection module in claims 1 and 6, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structures perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If the applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function SO that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, the applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 24 are rejected because they depend on the rejected independent claim 1.
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 1-24 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 24 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 1-24 fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 as a whole is directed to managing of a video contest. In particular, the claim recites receiving videos, storing videos, selecting one or more subsets of videos, providing the selected videos, receiving votes, generating a leaderboard, and providing the 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 is related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite 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 managing an equitable selection and display of videos to be voted on by users, 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 set of multiple videos; store the received videos in a storage device; for voting users: select, from the stored videos, via a selection module of the social media-based video contest management system, one or more subsets of multiple videos from the set of multiple videos, wherein the selection module is configured to manage an overall selection of the subsets of multiple videos such that an overall number of times a given video in the set of multiple videos is selected is equitable with respect to a number of times other videos in the set of multiple videos are selected; and provide, over the network, for display by a client device of a given voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting videos in one of the one or more subsets selected by the selection module for the given voting user, and a first interactive element operable by the given voting user to generate an input representing a vote for at least one of the videos in the one of the one or more subsets; receive, over the network, from the multiple client devices of the voting users, electronic messages representing votes; generate a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of videos ordered according to the received votes; and provide, over the network, for display by the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the post leaderboard data structure and a second electronic user interface portion comprising a second presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the post leaderboard data structure.”
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 comprising a hardware processor and a non-transitory machine-readable storage, a network, multiple client devices of posting users, a storage device, a selection module, a client device, a first electronic user interface portion, a second electronic user interface portion, and multiple client devices of the voting users, are merely used as tools to perform the abstract idea. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps of receiving videos, storing videos, selecting one or more subsets of videos, providing the selected videos, receiving votes, generating a leaderboard, and providing the 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 element of a selection module, whether implemented as software, firmware, or hardware, is a computer component for performing the step of selecting videos evenly, which is part of managing of a video contest, an identified abstract idea. Additionally, selecting one or more subsets of videos evenly is merely an improvement for 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, the 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 comprising a hardware processor and a non-transitory machine-readable storage, a network, multiple client devices of posting users, a storage device, a selection module, a client device, a first electronic user interface portion, a second electronic user interface portion, and multiple client devices of the voting users to perform the steps of receiving videos, storing videos, selecting one or more subsets of videos, providing the selected videos, receiving votes, generating a leaderboard, and providing the 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 the actions required to perform the abstract idea. 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, and 18-24 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 ideas of establishing a submission period during which posting users may submit videos for inclusion in the 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, 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 ideas.
Claims 3, 11, and 19 recite the abstract idea of calculating raw scores for videos in the 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 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 the other videos in the subset over the other videos in the subset, and wherein the SOS score for a given video is calculated based on (i) the raw scores of other videos in the subsets where the given video is accorded a win, (ii) the number of wins the given video is accorded over all other videos in the 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 one or more subsets 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 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 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 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 providing, for display, 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 24 recites the abstract idea of managing presentation of one or more subsets of the set of multiple videos, such that one or more subsets of the set of multiple videos are displayed to the voting users equally with respect to a number of times other videos in the one or more subsets are selected during the social media-based video contest, wherein the balancing component module is configured to monitor, in real time, a number of times videos in the one or more subsets of the set of multiple videos has been presented to voting users and, based on this monitoring, select for future presentation those videos that have been presented fewer times during the contest period, which falls under the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of a hardware processor and a balancing component module do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 14-15, 17-18, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cvinar (US 20200065853 A1) in view of Haley et al. (US 20210312948 A1).
Claims 1, 9, and 17:
Cvinar discloses the following:
a social media-based video contest management system for managing the equitable selection and display of videos to be voted on by users, 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. (See Fig. 1A; paragraph [0060], “[f]or example, as shown with regard to FIG. 1A, a tournament platform 110 interfaces with users, including content providers 120, voters 130, and, optionally, sponsor(s) 140. Content providers upload videos to the tournament platform and, in exchange, receive a fee for their services. Alternatively, the contest can include other types of media, such as photographs, written works, musical works, either in addition or in place of videos. Voters 130 view the submitted videos on the tournament platform and provide votes for the tournament”; paragraph [0064], “[t]he element of chance may be seen to arise, for example, because a particularly popular voter may participate in a tournament and share a link to a video with his or her social network, prompting more votes for the video. If the video wins, it may have been, at least in part, by the fortuitous circumstances of a particularly popular voter having seen the video (i.e., chance)”; paragraph [0069]; paragraphs [0114]-[0115], “[m]ultiple video submissions can be configured to compete in an expanded head-to-head-to-head configuration, or expanded bracket of single elimination contests (e.g., 2/4/8/16/32, etc.), or Ranking stage, as described above”; Figs. 6-7; and paragraphs [0194]-[0196].)
receive, over a network, from multiple client devices of posting users, a set of multiple videos; store the received videos in a storage device. (See Fig. 1A; paragraph [0060]; paragraph [0069]; paragraph [0142], “[i]n some embodiments, an entry is electronically uploaded via a device (e.g., mobile device, computer, laptop, or tablet) and submitted to the platform database during the open stage of a tournament or the early stage of ranking for some tournaments. This content is stored into cloud storage infrastructure as raw video file and a reference to it is stored in the platform database”; Fig. 6; paragraph [0112]; “[e]ach user is then prompted to upload a video within an allotted period of time, (e.g., 30 minutes, 1 hour, 1 day, or the like), or to begin streaming a live video”; and paragraph [0194].)
for voting users: select, from the stored videos, via a selection module of the social media-based video contest management system, one or more subsets of multiple videos from the set of multiple videos, wherein the selection module is configured to manage an overall selection of the subsets of multiple videos such that an overall number of times a given video in the set of multiple videos is selected is equitable with respect to a number of times other videos in the set of multiple videos are selected. (See Figs. 4A-4B; Fig. 12; Fig. 25; paragraph [0103], “[t]he ranking stage can occur after receipt of a number of video entries or after a period of time. Ranking of the videos can occur to determine the seeding order of the videos…. The ranking stage is optional”; paragraph [0106], “[d]uring the battle stage, voters are presented with a side-by-side view of the seeded videos, as shown in FIG. 12 and FIG. 25, with the option to vote for either video. The Quality Scores, as determined from sponsor and/or provider review, may be visible to voters. 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”; paragraph [0112], “[e]ach user is then prompted to upload a video within an allotted period of time, (e.g., 30 minutes, 1 hour, 1 day, or the like), or to begin streaming a live video…. In the event that the number of participants in a Challenge Battle does not become a number that works with a single-elimination-style tournament, the Ranking stage, described above, can be used to settle the total number of participants into an amount that works with a single-elimination-style-tournament”; paragraphs [0114]-[0115], “[m]ultiple video submissions can be configured to compete in an expanded head-to-head-to-head configuration, or expanded bracket of single elimination contests (e.g., 2/4/8/16/32, etc.), or Ranking stage, as described above”; paragraph [0159]; Figs. 6-7; and paragraphs [0195]-[0196], “[m]emory 90 provides volatile storage for computer software instructions 92 and data 94 used to implement an embodiment of the present invention (e.g., method 200).” By the broadest reasonable interpretation, a selection module may be software/instructions executed by the processor(s) to perform the defined functionalities. The software/instructions that perform the same steps as claimed could be interpreted as a selection module. Additionally, the head-to-head and/or single elimination contests in Cvinar indicate that each video is selected for inclusion only in one of the subsets for the first round of a video tournament.)
provide, over the network, for display by a client device of a given voting user, a first electronic user interface portion comprising a first presentation portion for presenting videos in one of the one or more subsets selected by the selection module for the given voting user, and a first interactive element operable by the given voting user to generate an input representing a vote for at least one of the videos in the one of the one or more subsets. (See Figs. 4A-4B; Fig. 12; Fig. 25; paragraph [0083], “[t]he 16 video submissions then participate in a series of head-to-head single elimination rounds, as shown, for example, in FIG. 4A. Advancement to the next round occurs for the video receiving the highest score (e.g., based on a computation of public voting, and optionally, provider-review and/or sponsor-review). The process continues until one winner is declared. An example of a head-to-head elimination round is shown in FIG. 4B, with a voter being presented with the entries of two content providers and voting buttons with which to select his or her preference”; paragraph [0106], “[d]uring the battle stage, voters are presented with a side-by-side view of the seeded videos, as shown in FIG. 12 and FIG. 25, with the option to vote for either video. The Quality Scores, as determined from sponsor and/or provider review, may be visible to voters. 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”; paragraph [0112]; paragraphs [0114]-[0115], “[m]ultiple video submissions can be configured to compete in an expanded head-to-head-to-head configuration, or expanded bracket of single elimination contests (e.g., 2/4/8/16/32, etc.), or Ranking stage, as described above”; Fig. 6; and paragraph [0194].)
receive, over the network, from the multiple client devices of the voting users, electronic messages representing the votes. (See paragraph [0014], “[t]he processor is further configured to assign a seed-position to each of the acceptable video submissions, publish the acceptable video submissions on the tournament platform based on the assigned seed-positions to a plurality of voters, and receive votes from the plurality of voters. A winning content provider is determined based, at least in part, on the received votes, and an award is transmitted to the winning content provider”; paragraph [0106], “[d]uring the battle stage, voters are presented with a side-by-side view of the seeded videos, as shown in FIG. 12 and FIG. 25, with the option to vote for either video. The Quality Scores, as determined from sponsor and/or provider review, may be visible to voters. 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.”)
generate a post leaderboard data structure representing a ranked list. (See Fig. 24 and paragraph [0090].)
Cvinar does not explicitly disclose generating a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of videos ordered according to the received votes; and providing, over the network, for display by the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the post leaderboard data structure and a second electronic user interface portion comprising a second presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the post leaderboard data structure.
However, Haley, an analogous art of posting videos, discloses generating a post leaderboard data structure representing a list of videos ordered according to the received votes; and providing, over the network, for display by the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the post leaderboard data structure and a second electronic user interface portion comprising a second presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the post leaderboard data structure. (See Figure 10; paragraphs [0180]-[0181], “[t]hat is, users compete against one another by submitting videos for inclusion in a final video compilation of compilations 140 (the ‘Song Story’) associated with a select musical composition or song…. The client 110 and/or remote service system 120 is operable to present one or more video fragments 132 associated with an audio track 1310 (i.e., an audiovisual set 130) in a list format, or a ‘leaderboard’, as depicted and referenced at 1003, for allowing users to view and react to the audiovisual sets 130. In this example, the leaderboard presents all videos 132 submitted by users, with the highest-ranked entries presented in order. That is, the first place user is displayed at the top of the list 1005 with the total number of likes 1006, and so on…. A user can scroll through the leaderboard 1003 to view any entry, and by selecting an entry, by tapping on any entry as at 1005, the user is presented with a social post for the audiovisual set 130 (that is, the video fragment 132 playing alongside an associated audio track section 1310) (the social post is depicted in an example user interface 111 in FIG. No. 9)…. In this example, the leaderboard 1003 ranks entries based on the number of likes, as at 1006.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Haley in the Cvinar system. Moreover, in order to make the Cvinar system more user-friendly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to generate and provide a leaderboard based on the voting results, so that the participants can effectively obtain the contest results via the leaderboard.
Claims 2, 10, and 18:
Cvinar in view of Haley discloses the limitations shown above.
Cvinar further discloses establishing a submission period during which posting users may submit videos for inclusion in the 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. (See paragraphs [0112]-[0113], “[e]ach user is then prompted to upload a video within an allotted period of time, (e.g., 30 minutes, 1 hour, 1 day, or the like), or to begin streaming a live video…. The challenge videos are then made available for a public vote for a period of time.”)
Claims 6, 14, and 22:
Cvinar in view of Haley discloses the limitations shown above.
Cvinar further discloses wherein execution of the instruction by the hardware processor to select, from the stored videos, via the selection module, the one or more subsets of multiple videos from the set of multiple videos causes 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. (See Figs. 4A-4B; Fig. 12; Fig. 25; paragraph [0074], “[a]dditionally, voting can be restricted to those users with an exclusive invitation to vote”; paragraph [0078], “[s]imilarly, voters may be limited to users registered with the tournament platform, or have been invited to otherwise granted access to vote in exclusive tournaments”; paragraph [0083], “[t]he 16 video submissions then participate in a series of head-to-head single elimination rounds, as shown, for example, in FIG. 4A. Advancement to the next round occurs for the video receiving the highest score (e.g., based on a computation of public voting, and optionally, provider-review and/or sponsor-review). The process continues until one winner is declared. An example of a head-to-head elimination round is shown in FIG. 4B, with a voter being presented with the entries of two content providers and voting buttons with which to select his or her preference”; paragraph [0106], “[d]uring the battle stage, voters are presented with a side-by-side view of the seeded videos, as shown in FIG. 12 and FIG. 25, with the option to vote for either video. The Quality Scores, as determined from sponsor and/or provider review, may be visible to voters. 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”; paragraph [0112]; paragraphs [0114]-[0115], “[m]ultiple video submissions can be configured to compete in an expanded head-to-head-to-head configuration, or expanded bracket of single elimination contests (e.g., 2/4/8/16/32, etc.), or Ranking stage, as described above”; and paragraphs [0158]-[0159].)
Claims 7 and 15:
Cvinar in view of Haley discloses the limitations shown above.
Cvinar discloses generating a leaderboard. (See paragraph [0090]).
Haley discloses wherein execution of the instructions by the hardware processor to generate a post leaderboard data structure causes the hardware processor 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. (See Figure 10; paragraph [0181], “[i]n this example, the leaderboard presents all videos 132 submitted by users, with the highest-ranked entries presented in order. That is, the first place user is displayed at the top of the list 1005 with the total number of likes 1006, and so on.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Haley in the Cvinar system. Moreover, in order to make the Cvinar system more user-friendly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to generate and provide a leaderboard based on the voting results, so that the participants can effectively obtain the contest results via the leaderboard.
Claim 24:
Cvinar in view of Haley discloses the limitations shown above.
Cvinar further discloses managing presentation of the one or more subsets of the set of multiple videos, such that one or more subsets of the set of multiple videos are displayed to the voting users equally with respect to a number of times other video videos in the one or more subsets are selected during the social media-based video content. (See Figs. 4A-4B; Fig. 12; Fig. 25; paragraph [0103], “[t]he ranking stage can occur after receipt of a number of video entries or after a period of time. Ranking of the videos can occur to determine the seeding order of the videos…. The ranking stage is optional”; paragraph [0106], “[d]uring the battle stage, voters are presented with a side-by-side view of the seeded videos, as shown in FIG. 12 and FIG. 25, with the option to vote for either video. The Quality Scores, as determined from sponsor and/or provider review, may be visible to voters. 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”; paragraph [0112], “[e]ach user is then prompted to upload a video within an allotted period of time, (e.g., 30 minutes, 1 hour, 1 day, or the like), or to begin streaming a live video…. In the event that the number of participants in a Challenge Battle does not become a number that works with a single-elimination-style tournament, the Ranking stage, described above, can be used to settle the total number of participants into an amount that works with a single-elimination-style-tournament”; paragraphs [0114]-[0115], “[m]ultiple video submissions can be configured to compete in an expanded head-to-head-to-head configuration, or expanded bracket of single elimination contests (e.g., 2/4/8/16/32, etc.), or Ranking stage, as described above”; paragraph [0159]; Figs. 6-7; and paragraphs [0195]-[0196], “[m]emory 90 provides volatile storage for computer software instructions 92 and data 94 used to implement an embodiment of the present invention (e.g., method 200).” These citations indicate that if the number of videos in a contest works with a single-elimination-style tournament, all videos will be included in the tournament. The head-to-head and/or single elimination contests in Cvinar indicate that each video is selected for inclusion only in one of the subsets for the first round of a video tournament.)
Examiner’s Note: The cited balancing component module is not positively recited as a module comprised in the social media-based video contest management system. Therefore, the balancing component module is out of scope of the claimed social media-based video contest management system and does not have patentable weight.
Claims 5, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cvinar (US 20200065853 A1) in view of Haley et al. (US 20210312948 A1), and further in view of Costin et al. (US 20090181738 A1).
Claims 5, 13, and 21:
Cvinar in view of Haley discloses the limitations shown above.
Cvinar discloses calculating final scores for the videos in the 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) other scores for the given video, wherein the final score for the given video is calculated by adding (i) a raw score for the given video to (ii) another score for the given video. (See paragraphs [0103]-[0104], “[t]he ranking stage can be limited by a period of time, by a number of videos, by a number of videos reaching a certain threshold of votes, or any combination thereof. The final ranking of the videos can be based on a Final Score as determined by the weighted averages of each of the Quality Review Score(s) and the popular ranking votes”; paragraph [0146]; and paragraphs [0151]-[0154], “[o]nce the timer hits zero, the winners and losers for each match are determined by comparing the scores of the two entries using the formula described above. During the battling phase, only the votes for the current match may be counted when computing the entries' scores. In another configuration, all existing votes, including those form previous stages/contests, can also be counted when computing the entries' scores…. Videos can also advance in Battling based entirely on Public Voting results, as well as entirely on Sponsor review score and/or platform review score, or a combination of Public Voting results and Sponsor/Platform review.”)
Neither Cvinar nor Haley explicitly discloses an SOS score and calculating a final score based on the SOS score.
However, Costin, an analogous art of calculating scores for a tournament, discloses calculating a strength of schedule (SOS) score and calculating the final score based on the SOS score and other scores. (See Abstract; paragraphs [0032]-[0033]; and paragraphs [0035]-[0040], “[t]his new ranking system takes into account an individual team's Strength of Schedule as well as other factors and is a more accurate representation of each teams' skill set compared to the rest of the league…. Strength of Schedule is critical in determining if a team faces a tough opponent week to week or a weak opponent who scores few points throughout the season.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Costin in the Cvinar system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the accuracy of video ranking in the Cvinar system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to calculate the final score based on an SOS score and other scores for each candidate in the tournament, so that the winners can be selected based on more accurate representation of the candidates.
Claims 8, 16, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cvinar (US 20200065853 A1) in view of Haley et al. (US 20210312948 A1), and further in view of Wolfley et al. (US 20220121670 A1).
Claims 8, 16, and 23:
Cvinar in view of Haley discloses the limitations shown above.
Cvinar discloses conducting multiple contests with videos including one or more of the multiple videos. (See paragraph [0115], “[c]hallenge battles can have specific categories to allow contestants to focus on topics they find most relevant to their interests, such as, for example, music, art, or comedy”; paragraph [0158], “[t]he user can select what category of content he/she wants the challenge to be about. This is done by having different user pools for each category. A category can multiple themes under it, and the theme for the challenge can be selected randomly.”)
Civinar further discloses a leaderboard for participants/videos in multiple contests. (See paragraph [0090], “[f]or example, a leaderboard can highlight content creators with the most wins, most videos, most videos in a category or theme, and the like.”)
Haley discloses generating a leaderboard data structure; and providing, over the network, for display by the multiple client devices of the voting users and/or posting users, the leaderboard data structure and a third electronic user interface portion comprising a third presentation portion for displaying a rendering of the leaderboard data structure. (See Figure 10; paragraphs [0180]-[0181].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Haley in the Cvinar system. Moreover, in order to make the Cvinar system more user-friendly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to generate and provide a leaderboard based on the voting results, so that the participants can effectively obtain the contest results via the leaderboard.
Neither Cvinar nor Haley explicitly discloses 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.
However, Wolfley, an analogous art of accurate ratings of elements, discloses generating a user leaderboard data structure representing a list of the voting users ordered according to votes received from the voting users for the elements. (See paragraph [0019], “[o]ther users can provide ratings or votings on those users' content, and the quality of those other users' ratings or votings can be taken into consideration when rating the user's content. Users that consistently provide accurate votes, or consistently provide quality content that receives high votes, can be placed on leader boards. In this manner, users that consistently provide quality voting and content in particular subjects can receive recognition”; paragraphs [0059]-[0060], “[f]or example, in system ‘Physics Experts Only,’ certain users who routinely provide accurate votes will be displayed at the top…. If a user's voting is more accurate, they will rise on the leaderboard, and gain more power to vote in that group.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the subject matter of Wolfley in the Cvinar system as modified. Moreover, in order to improve the voting process of the Cvinar system as modified, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to generate a user leaderboard to rank the voting users based on the votes, so that the voting users are interested in participating the voting process with more accurate votes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 11-12, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claims 1, 9, and 17, respectively. These claims would be allowable if the double patenting, 112 rejection, and 101 rejection, set forth in this office action, are overcome and, if rewritten in independent form, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The reason for allowance will be furnished upon allowance of the application.
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. A video-based competition is presented to a user with two or more video clips played in conjunction. The video clips may be synchronized to a time base and/or common audio clip.
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.
Marovets (US 11509614 B2) discloses a method for providing a service for image sharing and feedback. The types of images include photo, video, and/or animation. The photo war component provides for presenting users multiple photos and receiving a selection of one of the multiple photos and the photo contest component provides for presenting users with multiple photos and receiving votes or likes for the photo.
Vasquez (US 20230275972 A1) discloses monitoring each of the presented multimedia contents and determining the play time duration for each of the multimedia contents.
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