DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the request for continued examination filed 05 January 2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s remarks but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues that Examiner’s § 101 analysis is incorrect and lacks legal and factual basis.” Remarks at 10. Applicant supports this conclusion by pointing to remarks made by Examiner in the Response to Amendment/Remarks section, not the Rejection itself. It is important to note that Examiner was responding to Applicant’s arguments, not making the rejection, when pointing out differences between Finjan and the present claims, for example. Examiner did not use Finjan in the Rejection itself. Additionally, it was Applicant that argued that the present invention provided an improvement that was not previously available in the art. Examiner pointed out how this was not the case by noting that the purported improvement was previously available in the art. Examiner was not going outside of any legal standard by pointing out the fallacies of an argument made.
Applicant argues that the “Examiner argues that computer vision was known. However, no prior art teaches or suggests: the generation of conflicting classifier outputs from multiple enrichment services; a processor-based conflict resolution algorithm to yield a single specific indicator; or using the unified indicator to control dynamic, time-synchronized streaming behavior.” Remarks at 10-11. Even if true that these steps are not found in the prior art, they still must provide a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception to overcome the § 101 rejection. Additionally, Applicant is arguing limitations not found in the claims – an algorithm is not found in the claims. At most, claim 1 recites that conflicts are resolved, but does not elaborate on how that is accomplished. An algorithm, even if claimed, would be considered a judicial exception.
Applicant argues that “the Office Action misapplies Finjan. The improvement in Finjan did not arise from inventing virus scanners - they existed. The improvement was a new data structure and processing technique that allowed computers to classify content with capabilities they previously lacked. The present claims likewise enable the computer to perform automatic, fine-grained, frame-level contextual classification and policy-based streaming selection that prior systems could not accomplish with coarse, manual metadata. See [0020], [0026], [0040]-[0041].” Remarks at 11. Finjan, as discussed in the MPEP, was found subject matter eligible because the claims set forth an improvement to computer functionality. See “A method that generates a security profile that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations, and can protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and "obfuscated code," which is an improvement over traditional virus scanning. Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, 879 F.3d 1299, 1304, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018)” in MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, Finjan provided an improvement over traditional virus scanning. In relation to the present claims, the present claims utilize traditional computer vision techniques. These computer vision techniques, now amended to include object detection and scene classification, are discussed in US 2011/0251896 (“Impollonia”), cited by Applicant in a previous IDS. Object detection is discussed in [0087]-[0089] and scene classification is discussed in [0093]-[0094]. The present claims merely indicate utilization of these existing techniques, not an improvement to them.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
Step 2A-Prong One
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the concept of identifying and utilizing video segment category information to select additional media content which is then played with the video segment (See “applying, by one or more computer processors, one or more computer vision techniques including at least: (a) object detection; and (b) scene classification to video frames of a to-be-enriched video segment to identify a specific media content category of the video segment based on what is visually depicted in the to-be-enriched video segment; generating, by the one or more computer processors, a media context metadata portion that includes a specific media content indicator indicating the specific media content category of the to-be-enriched video segment; wherein a plurality of media content indicators is generated for the to-be-enriched video segment by one or more content enrichment services at one or more time points; wherein the specific media content indicator is generated by resolving conflicts among the plurality of media content indicators; in response to determining that the to-be-enriched video segment is to be played back by a user computing device, performing by the one or more computer processors: selecting an enriching media content item from among a plurality of enriching media content items based at least in part on the specific media content indicator indicating the specific media content category of the to-be- enriched video segment; causing the enriching media content item to be streamed to the user computing device and played back with the to-be- enriched video segment on an image display operating in conjunction with the user computing device, wherein the enriching media content item is played back in a time duration before, after or during the to-be-enriched video segment” in claim 1. Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations.). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including advertising activities. The specification supports in at least [0038] that the selected media content may be an advertisement. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 further limit how the media content is played with the video segment (see “the enriching media content item is spatially superimposed with at least a portion of video frames in the to-be-enriched video segment.”). This limitation does not take the claims out of the abstract idea grouping. Thus, claims 2, 9, and 16 recite an abstract idea.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, and 20 further limit how the media content is selected (See “one or more enriching media content items in the plurality of enriching media content items are excluded from being selected in response to detecting a specific event” in claims 3, 10, and 17, “one or more enriching media content items in the plurality of enriching media content items are excluded from being selected during a specific time duration of a day” in claims 4, 11, and 18, and “the enriching media content item is selected from among the plurality of enriching media content items based further on one or more of: computer-implemented safety policies, computer-implemented suitability policies, computer-implemented safety rules or computer-implemented suitability rules” in claims 6, 13, and 20.). These limitations do not take the claims out of the abstract idea grouping. Thus, claims 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, and 20 recite an abstract idea.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite that the media content is accompanied with one or more tracking pixels. This limitation does not take the claims out of the abstract idea grouping. Thus, claims 5, 12, and 19 recite an abstract idea.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component does not take the claim limitations out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of (claims 1-6) one or more computer processors, (claims 8-13) a system comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, or (claims 15-20) one or more non-transitory computer-readable media and one or more computer processors and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622