CTFR 18/383,282 CTFR 82707 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments 07-38 Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim (s) 1-13, 15-22 and 24 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 7, 10-12, 17-19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackerman et al. (hereinafter ‘Ackerman’, Pub. No. 2024/0242428) in view of D’Auria (Pub. No. 2024/0232937) in further view of Koh et al. (hereinafter ‘Koh’, Pub. No. 2023/0030341) . Regarding claims 1 and 18, Ackerman teaches a computing system (100, Fig. 1, [0028]) (with corresponding method) for generating video content comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory, tangible memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors ([0029]-[0031]) , cause the computing system to: obtain first information, the first information including information associated with a user or a content sponsor (0033]-[0036]; [0043]-[0046]; [0086]-[0089]) ; generate text content at least in part by applying the first information to a generative artificial intelligence model ([0034]-[0036]; [0043]-[0046]; [0086]-[0089]) ; obtain image content ([0038]) ; and generate video content, at least in part by applying the text content and the image content as inputs to a template model, wherein the template model causes the generated video content to conform to the one or more temporal characteristics ([0009]; [0091], where content -including video- is generated based on input provided on template model, Figs. 3D to 3F) . On the other hand, Ackerman does not explicitly teach wherein the template model defines one or more temporal characteristics relate to how a set a set of visual elements is presented over time in the video content and wherein the template model is selected from a plurality of candidate template models based on a predicted performance metric for each of the plurality of candidate template models. However, in an analogous art, D’Auria teaches a system that generates and optimizes audiovisual content, including TV commercials, online videos, etc., using generative methods (Abstract; ). The system could receive inputs such as images, audio, video, AR/VR and performance metrics and then, transforms it to descriptive intermediaries for future analysis and corresponding future commercial generation/creation ([0013]-[0015]; [0092]). After training, the system has multiple models (fitted models), tabulated and scored for selection by the user/system in order to achieve targets. When creating a commercial, the system fine-tunes/optimizes the options of a wide array of multimedia outputs possible ([0181]-[0193]). The models (intermediaries/final) delineate the relationship of the elements throughout the duration of the video/script ([0013]; [0125]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ackerman’s invention with D’Auria’s feature of selecting a template based on predicted performance metrics for each possible candidate models for the benefit of “predictive power over video content performance to predict video themes and attributes most likely to succeed in achieving performance objectives, even before any financial commitment to video advertising or content creation… for more effective and targeted efforts” (D’Auria: [0024]). Additionally, Ackerman and D’Auria do not explicitly teach wherein the predicted performance metric based at least on (i) the first information and (ii) at least one characteristic of the candidate template model. However, in an analogous art, Koh teaches a system that utilize a dynamic user interface and machine learning tools to generate data-driven content ([0139]-[0142]). The system recommends templates for generating content ([0069]). The system narrows down the multiple templates based on user data and predictive performance data of the template/digital object ([0068]-[0072]; [0143]-[0147]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ackerman and D’Auria’s invention with Koh’s feature of narrowing template recommendations based on predicted performance metric based on user/content information and template characteristics for the benefit of optimizing, in time and success expectancy, the options provided to the user when generating content. Regarding claim 2, Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh teach wherein the generative artificial intelligence model includes a deep neural network (Ackerman: [0044]) . Regarding claim 3, Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh teach wherein the deep neural network is a large language model (Ackerman: [0044]) . Regarding claim 4, Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh teach wherein generating the text content includes: generating a prompt based on the first information and a prompt template (Ackerman: 332, Fig. 3E; [0006]; [0037]; [0046]; [0046]) ; and applying the prompt as input to the generative artificial intelligence model (Ackerman: [0075]; [0076]) . For claim 19: applying the prompt as input to the large language model (Ackerman: [0044]). Regarding claim 7, Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh teach wherein the first information includes information associated with the content sponsor (Ackerman: [0086]; [0089]; [0090]) . Regarding claim 10, Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh teach wherein the first information includes information associated with the user (Ackerman: input configuration information is associated or represents users’ preferences, [0064]-[0066]; [0089]-[0091]) . Regarding claim 11, Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh teach wherein the information associated with the user includes a search query entered by the user (Ackerman: 332, Fig. 3E; [0064]; [0089]) . Regarding claim 12, Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh teach wherein the information associated with the user includes one or more of: a location of the user (Ackerman: [0089]; [0092]) ; an indication of other video content previously watched by the user; a profile of the user; or a preference of the user (Ackerman: input configuration information is associated or represents users’ preferences, [0064]-[0066]; [0089]-[0091]) . Regarding claim 13, Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh teach wherein the first information includes a current time, day, or season (Ackerman: [0086]) . Regarding claim 17, Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh teach wherein the one or more temporal characteristics include one or both of (i) a sequence of video segments, and (ii) an animation within a video segment (Ackerman: [0051]; [0057]; [0066]) . Regarding claim 22, Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh teach wherein the first information includes one or more of: a search query entered by the user (Ackerman: 332, Fig. 3E; [0064]; [0089]) ; a location of the user (Ackerman: [0089]; [0092]) ; an indication of other video content previously watched by the user; a profile of the user; or a preference of the user (Ackerman: input configuration information is associated or represents users’ preferences, [0064]-[0066]; [0089]-[0091]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackerman et al. (hereinafter ‘Ackerman’, Pub. No. 2024/0242428) in view of D’Auria (Pub. No. 2024/0232937) in view of Koh et al. (hereinafter ‘Koh’, Pub. No. 2023/0030341) in further view of Govil (Patent No. 9,020,824) . Regarding claims 5, 6 and 20, Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh teach all the limitations of the claims depend on. On the other hand, they do not explicitly teach wherein generating the prompt is further based on a desired maximum word count/sentence. However, in an analogous art, Govil teaches a system that receives user inputs to generate dynamic content. The input can be spoken and limited to a number of characters (col. 5 lines 4-41) and processed by natural language to further produce content (i.e. video). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh’s invention with Govil’s feature of placing a limit on the user spoken input for the benefit of ‘ensuring brevity and enhance the substantive content of the natural text’ (Govil: col. 5 lines 38-41) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8, 9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackerman et al. (hereinafter ‘Ackerman’, Pub. No. 2024/0242428) in view of D’Auria (Pub. No. 2024/0232937) in view of Koh et al. (hereinafter ‘Koh’, Pub. No. 2023/0030341) in further view of Sanio et al. (hereinafter ‘Sanio’, Pub. No. 2015/0112980) . Regarding claims 8, 9 and 21, Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh teach all the limitations of the claims they depend on. On the other hand, they do not explicitly teach wherein the information associated with the content sponsor includes information in a landing web page associated with the content sponsor. However, in an analogous art, Sanio teaches a system that generates content based on text input by users. The system is presented on a landing page ([0002]; [0042]; [0058]; [0065]-[0068]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh’s invention with Sanio’s feature of including information of a landing web page for the benefit of analyzing the input and assigning weight to keyword associated with the landing page (Sanio: [0027]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackerman et al. (hereinafter ‘Ackerman’, Pub. No. 2024/0242428) in view of D’Auria (Pub. No. 2024/0232937) in view of Koh et al. (hereinafter ‘Koh’, Pub. No. 2023/0030341) in further view of Swaminathan et al. (hereinafter ‘Swaminathan’, Pub. No. 2020/0021873) . Regarding claim 15, Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh teach all the limitations of the claims they depend on. On the other hand, they do not explicitly teach wherein the performance metric is a user click probability. However, in an analogous art, Swaminathan teaches a system that generates digital content for content campaign using artificial intelligence. The system also predicts future performance metrics and modify digital content ([0034]; [0045]; [0046]). Swaminathan teach wherein the performance metric is a user click probability ([0045]; [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh’s invention with Swaminathan’s feature of having the performance metric to be a user click probability for the benefit of being able to predict or estimate success of the content for different selection methods of selection and/or platforms . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackerman et al. (hereinafter ‘Ackerman’, Pub. No. 2024/0242428) in view of D’Auria (Pub. No. 2024/0232937) in view of Koh et al. (hereinafter ‘Koh’, Pub. No. 2023/0030341) in further view of Cha et al. (hereinafter ‘Cha’, Pub. No. 2024/0370660) . Regarding claims 16 and 24, Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh teach all limitations of the claims they depend on. On the other hand, they do not explicitly teach wherein obtaining the image content includes: determining, using a machine learning model, a relevance score for each of a plurality of candidate images, the image content consisting of one or more images of the plurality of candidate images; and selecting the one or more images based on the determined relevance scores. However, in an analogous art, Cha teaches a system that generates digital content based on user’s input using AI models. Cha teaches that the system receives input from the user reflecting his/her preferences ([0004]-[0006]). The system takes the user input and compares it to model style embeddings and ranks them based on similarity values ([0042]-[0044]). The system then generates multiple digital content with different AI models and are ranked for user selection based on the closest to user prompts ([0043]; [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ackerman, D’Auria and Koh’s invention with Cha’s feature of using relevance score for the benefit of quantifying closeness between user’s request and generated content. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR S PARRA whose telephone number is (571)270-1449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Mostly 10-6PM. 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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-2721915. 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. /OMAR S PARRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/383,282 Page 2 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/383,282 Page 3 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/383,282 Page 4 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/383,282 Page 5 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/383,282 Page 6 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/383,282 Page 7 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/383,282 Page 8 Art Unit: 2421
Prosecution Insights