DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 6/3/2025, Applicant, on 11/3/2025, amended Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, and 14, and cancelled Claims 2, 8, and 13. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, and 14 are pending in this action, have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding Foreign Priority – The foreign priority has been acknowledged as per the Foreign priority documents received on 2/7/2024.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §112(f) – The interpretation has been removed in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §112(a) – The rejection is hereby removed in light of Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §112(b) – The rejection is hereby removed in light of Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant states amended limitations of the claims, then states that they exceed the scope of human mental capabilities, and then states the claims are not Managing Human Behavior or Organizing human behavior. Examiner disagrees as this is a general assertion of eligibility under 101, and Applicant does not state why they are not organizing human activity other than stating that simulation of text with AI models are used, and this does not necessarily create eligibility, as the claims are not directed to an improvement in the artificial intelligence or in any additional element, combination, a technology, or technological field, but rather recites claims directed at analyzing information to discern a box office prediction, and then reporting this information. The claims as a whole do not improve any claimed addition element, such as by generally linking the claim to a computer in Claim 1, the apparatus, memory, processor, etc., and the whole of the rest, including the amended limitations, are part of the abstraction, as per the rejection below, as they merely are collecting, analyzing, and transmitting steps which are observations, evaluations, and judgments and also can be designated as a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. These are not practically integrated, as the claim limitations merely utilize current technologies, such as artificial intelligence, to perform the abstract limitations of the claims, similar to that of Alice, essentially “Applying It”. There is no improvement to any technology or any technological process, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §102 and 103 – The rejections are hereby removed for the reasons found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/27/2025 has been acknowledged.
The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
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.
Alice – Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11, and 14 recite limitations of tokenizing the text content, for a drama or a movie, into tokens to automatically generate, using a pre-trained artificial intelligence model, an analysis result of the text content (Collecting and Analyzing Information, an observation and evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. predicting results of human activity; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generating graphical box office indicia corresponding to a plurality of box office elements for the text content and assigning a score for each of the plurality of graphical box office indicia is generated to correspond the score, based on the analysis result (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. predicting results of human activity; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and simulating and displaying a box office prediction result including a predicted box office performance simulated according to the plurality of box office elements, wherein when the text content is the drama, the predicted box office performance comprises an expected viewership rating or grade of the drama, a number of views or votes or likes in digital formats, a number of positive new articles, an number of negative news articles, social media responses including evaluative phrases, sentences, or emoticons, comprising a smiling face or a thumbs-up, and a combination of any of the foregoing, wherein when the text content is the movie, the box office performance comprises a return on investment (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an evaluation and judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Behavior, i.e. predicting results of human activity; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of predicting box office results, Managing Human Behavior, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting an apparatus, graphical user interface including a plurality of graphical box office and box office elements, medium, system, memory, and processor, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of Organizing and Tracking information for Managing Human Behavior. For example, simulating a box office prediction result for the text content encompasses a person reading an article and thinking about whether a show or movie will be a box office hit like Spider-man vs. Perfect storm, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for organizing and tracking information for Managing Human Behavior, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The apparatus, medium, graphical user interface, system, memory, and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmission steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount 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. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[131] Lastly, the calculation unit 160, which is a subject that executes and controls tasks performed by the preceding configurations of the box office prediction result providing apparatus 100, may actually correspond to a central processing unit. The central processing unit may also be referred to as a controller, a microcontroller, a microprocessor, a microcomputer, or the like. Furthermore, the central processing unit may be implemented by hardware or firmware, software, or a combination thereof, and configured to include an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or a digital signal processor (DSP), a digital signal processing device (DSPD), a programmable logic device (PLD), or a field programmable gate array (FPGA) when implemented using hardware, and configured with firmware or software to include a module, a procedure, a function or the like that performs the foregoing functions or operations when implemented using firmware or software. In addition, the box office performance prediction result providing device 100 may of course include a storage unit 170, wherein the memory may be implemented as Read Only Memory (ROM), Random Access Memory (RAM), Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory (EPROM), Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM), flash memory, Static RAM (SRAM), a hard disk drive (HDD), a solid-state drive (SSD) or the like.”
Which states that any type of device or computer may be used, such as any personal computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, etc., to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and transmission steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the units, system, apparatus, etc., nor the receiving and transmission steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3-7, 9 -10 and 12 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice Analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Srivastava (U.S. Publication No. 2020/037,2524).
Regarding Claims 1, 11-12, and 14, Srivastava teaches a method of analyzing text content to provide a box office prediction result, the method comprising:
receiving text content from a user ([0025] user can share the script from a mobile device and in [0143] user input is received from the user);
generating, based on content information included in the text content, an analysis result through the analysis of the text content ([0051] each scene is analyzed for the text content);
generating, based on the analysis result, a box office prediction result for the text content ([0030] a determination/prediction of the performance/success of the box office); and
providing the box office prediction result to the user ([0139-140] the prediction and parameters are sent through UI elements to the screen and the user).
Examiner notes Srivastava teaches an apparatus ([0160] system and apparatus), units ([0039] specialized processing units), system, memory ([0148] memory), and processor ([0029] processor).
Regarding Claim 2, Srivastava teaches wherein the text content comprises at least one of a script, a scenario, and a proposal ([0056] scripts with scenes/scenarios) for content including a movie, a drama, a novel, and a webtoon ([0069] movie, script, drama).
Regarding Claim 3, Srivastava teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the receiving of the text content comprises: receiving information on the text content through direct typing from the user; or receiving information on the text content through a copy-and-paste operation; or receiving a file corresponding to the text content using a drag-and-drop method ([0139 user inputs information, or uses drag and drop).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava (U.S. Publication No. 2020/037,2524) in view of Bessen (U.S. Publication No. 2019/029,5110).
Regarding Claim 4, Although Srivastava teaches The method of claim 3, it does not explicitly use of any of the files.
Bessen teaches files that can be uploaded, drag and dropped, wherein the file corresponding to the text content is a text-based file with an extension of any one of txt, rtf, doc, docx, htm, html, json, xls, xlsx, and pdf ([0055] where the files can be pdf, text, html, etc.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the predictive analytics of movie script texts of Srivastava with the file types for script upload of Bessen as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention that teaches solutions to predicting box office results, it is old and well-known to use these types of files for text input purposes, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the analyzation of user data to improve and customize decisions for investment in these media products as taught in [0005] and [0077] of Bessen.
Regarding Claim 5, Althought Srivastava teaches wherein the generating of the analysis result (as in Claims above) comprises: generating a summary of content information included in the received text content ([0022] the analyzation of content in an efficient manner; and analyzing data/information to generate a result such as a score as in [0150]), and analyzing data to get a result as in ([0150-152] analyzation of data for a result), it does not explicitly state use of metadata.
Bessen teaches analyzation of metadata as in [0156].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the predictive analytics of movie script texts of Srivastava with the metadata for script upload of Bessen as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention that teaches solutions to predicting box office results, it is old and well-known to use metadat, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the analyzation of user data to improve and customize decisions for investment in these media products as taught in [0005] and [0077] of Bessen.
Regarding Claim 6, While Srivastava teaches wherein the metadata information comprises at least one of person information, genre information, location information, or conversation information between people included in information on the text content ([0152-153] genre information, crew budget, etc.), and wherein the analysis result comprises at least one of a genre characteristic map, a number of scenes, a number of characters, a number of locations, a number of conversations, a number of scenes and lines for each main character, estimated cost of production, or a character relationship between main characters for the text content ([0116] character analysis, lines, scenes are analyzed for results, [0117] locations type of scenes, etc.), it does not explicitly state use of metadata.
Bessen teaches analyzation of metadata as in [0156].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the predictive analytics of movie script texts of Srivastava with the metadata for script upload of Bessen as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention that teaches solutions to predicting box office results, it is old and well-known to use metadat, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the analyzation of user data to improve and customize decisions for investment in these media products as taught in [0005] and [0077] of Bessen.
Regarding Claim 7, Srivastava teaches wherein the generating of the box office prediction result as in the Claims above, comprises: predicting box office performance of the text content based on the content analysis, the summary and the analysis result ([0028] cost function is uses to analyze and summarize the amount predicted, also predicted in claims above); and generating a box office prediction result that qualitatively represents a box office index according to the prediction ([0138] a projection of a budget is a qualitative result of the prediction), it does not explicitly state use of metadata.
Bessen teaches analyzation of metadata as in [0156].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the predictive analytics of movie script texts of Srivastava with the metadata for script upload of Bessen as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention that teaches solutions to predicting box office results, it is old and well-known to use metadat, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the analyzation of user data to improve and customize decisions for investment in these media products as taught in [0005] and [0077] of Bessen.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, and 14 have overcome the prior art and would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
The closest prior art of record are Srivastava (U.S. Publication No. 2020/037,2524), Bessen (U.S. Publication No. 2019/029,5110), and Koenig (U.S. Publication No. 2021/037,4773). Srivastava, a system and method for prediction of film success-quotient, teaches receiving text content from a use, generating, based on content information included in the text content, an analysis result through the analysis of the text content, generating, based on the analysis result, a box office prediction result for the text content, providing the box office prediction result to the user, wherein the text content comprises at least one of a script, a scenario, and a proposal for content including a movie, a drama, a novel, and a webtoon, receiving information on the text content through direct typing from the user; or receiving information on the text content through a copy-and-paste operation; or receiving a file corresponding to the text content using a drag-and-drop method, but it does not explicitly use of any of the files. Bessen, a system and method for performance analytics, teaches files that can be uploaded, drag and dropped, wherein the file corresponding to the text content is a text-based file with an extension of any one of txt, rtf, doc, docx, htm, html, json, xls, xlsx, and pdf, analyzation of metadata, and tokenization of content, but does not teach assigning of a score for elements and using an artificial intelligence model along with the tokenization process. Koening, an automatic movie performance predictor system and method, teaches scoring and rating multiple genres of movies, prediction of a box office score, and predicting of streaming box office, but does not teach the tokenization process with artificial intelligence, the way the elements are used in scoring, or the simulation as configured. None of the above prior art explicitly teaches the tokenization process with artificial intelligence, the way the elements are used in scoring, or the simulation as configured, as claimed, along with the other limitations of the claims, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, and 14 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200372524 A1
SRIVASTAVA; ANUBHAV et al.
PREDICTION OF FILM SUCCESS-QUOTIENT
US 20190295110 A1
BESSEN; Mark et al.
PERFORMANCE ANALYTICS SYSTEM FOR SCRIPTED MEDIA
US 20240370889 A1
Back; Daniel et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CUMULATIVE SERIES EVENT PREDICTION
US 20230368223 A1
SONG; Jie et al.
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DATA PROCESSING BASED ON DATA VALUE
US 20220088488 A1
Costakis; Alexander et al.
BOX OFFICE GAME
US 20210374773 A1
Koenig; Errol Avery
AUTOMATIC MOVIE PERFORMANCE PREDICTOR
US 20210256543 A1
Bessen; Mark et al.
Predictive Analytics Diagnostic System and Results on Market Viability and Audience Metrics for Scripted Media
US 20190366217 A1
Costakis; Alexander et al.
BOX OFFICE GAME
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 JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM 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, 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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683 12/19/2025
Prosecution Insights