DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-14 are considered in this Office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/26/2023 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.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on April 24, 2015. It is noted, however, that applicant has not fulfilled all requirements for foreign priority as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 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) 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):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “unit” 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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “configured to” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “configured to” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) are in Claims 11-13, and consist of the limitations of “a content receiving unit…”, “an analysis result generation unit…”, “a prediction result generation unit…”, and a “result providing unit…”.
Because these claim limitation are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If 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).
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.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is directed at use of “a content receiving unit…”, “an analysis result generation unit…”, “a prediction result generation unit…”, and a “result providing unit…”. These means (configurations) are not defined in the specification as to what these units (means) would be, other than what functions they perform. For instance, they could be hardware, software, a processor, and this is not defined in the specification. The Specification and drawings show:
“[106] Referring to FIG. 16, a box office prediction result providing apparatus 100 may include a content receiving unit 110, an analysis result generation unit 120, a prediction result generation unit 130, and a result providing unit 140.
[107]The content receiving unit 110, which is configured to receive text content, may receive text content that requires a box office prediction from the user. Here, the text content may include at least one of a script, a scenario, and a proposal for content including a movie, a drama, novel, and a webtoon.
[108]The analysis result generation unit 120, which is configured to analyze text content and generate an analysis result, may generate an analysis result through the analysis of the text content based on content information included in the text content input by the user.
[109]The prediction result generation unit 130, which is configured to generate a box office prediction result for text content, may generate a box office prediction result for the text content based on the analysis result.
[110]The result providing unit 140, which is configured to provide a box office prediction result, may provide the box office prediction result to the user.”
Which is the only description of what these units might be is in the Specification, and the Specification generally states what these units/means are capable of doing, but does not define what these units are, how these perform the limitations of the claims, or even if they are software or hardware. There are no details or description as to how the units would be configured to perform these processes/limitations. To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that a patent must describe the technology; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The dependent Claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims and thus are similarly rejected.
Therefore, the claims and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), written description, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claim 11 recites use of “a content receiving unit…”, “an analysis result generation unit…”, “a prediction result generation unit…”, and a “result providing unit…”. Applicant’s specification is silent as to what this unit may be for these as per the specification above, and as best taken from above, this is instructions/software which is in communication with a processor/computer. For Examination purposes this will be taken as any hardware or software which can perform the limitations of the claims.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent, and thus the dependents are similarly rejected.
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 1-14 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 are directed at limitations for receiving text content from a user (Collecting Information, an observation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Behavior, i.e. predicting results of human activity; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generating, based on content information included in the text content, an analysis result through the analysis of the text content (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Behavior, i.e. predicting results of human activity; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generating, based on the analysis result, a box office prediction result for the text content (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for Managing Human Behavior, i.e. predicting results of human activity; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and providing the box office prediction result to the user (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an evaluation and judgment, a Mental Process; Organizing and Tracking Information for 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 organizing and tracking information for scheduling project, Managing Human Behavior, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting an apparatus, content receiving unit, analyzing result generation unit, prediction result generation unit, result providing unit, 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, generating 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, content receiving unit, analyzing result generation unit, prediction result generation unit, result providing unit, 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 2-10 and 12-13 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, 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 8-10 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection, contains all intervening claims, and other rejections.
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
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, ERIC STAMBER can be reached on (571) 272-6724. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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 5/30/2025