DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is a non-final action on the merits in response to the amendments and arguments filed on April 8, 2026. Claims 21-25, 27, 31-35, 37, and 41 were amended. Claims 26, 36, and 42 were canceled. Claims 44-46 were added. Claims 21-25, 27-35, 37, 41, and 43-46 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 8, 2026 has been entered.
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 21-25, 27-35, 37, 41, and 43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent Claims 21 and 31 recite “determining the frame of the displayed media asset comprises a first portion depicting at least one performer of interest of the plurality of performers of the cast and a second portion which does not depict a performer of interest of the plurality of performers of the cast, wherein whether a performer is a performer of interest is determined based at least in part on a level of popularity or fame of the performer,” yet Applicant’s specification fails to disclose the sequence of steps of how a level of popularity or fame of a performer is determined, to determine whether the performer is a performer of interest. Paragraph [0035] of Applicant’s specification states that “the media application may crop out… a portion where insignificant performers are presented,” and paragraph [0092] states that “certain portions of a scene (e.g., scene 101 of FIG. 1) associated with the extracted image may be cropped out, e.g., to omit insignificant or less famous performers.” According to MPEP 2161.01(i), “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.” In the instant application, Applicant has failed to disclose the sequence of steps of how a level of popularity or fame of a performer is determined, to determine whether the performer is a performer of interest in the specification; there is no description of the necessary steps or any flowcharts in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.
Claim 44 recites “automatically causing the image to include the first portion of the frame is based at least in part on metadata for the frame indicating that the at least one performer of interest of sufficient popularity or fame is located at the first portion of the frame, and automatically causing the image not to include the second portion of the frame is based at least in part on the metadata indicating that the second portion of the frame does not include a depiction of a performer of interest or includes a performer of the plurality of performers that is determined not to be of sufficient popularity or fame to constitute a performer of interest,” yet Applicant’s specification fails to disclose the sequence of steps of how it is determined that a performer is or is not of sufficient popularity or fame, to determine whether the performer is a performer of interest. Paragraph [0035] of Applicant’s specification states that “the media application may crop out… a portion where insignificant performers are presented,” and paragraph [0092] states that “certain portions of a scene (e.g., scene 101 of FIG. 1) associated with the extracted image may be cropped out, e.g., to omit insignificant or less famous performers.” According to MPEP 2161.01(i), “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.” In the instant application, Applicant has failed to disclose the sequence of steps of how it is determined that a performer is or is not of sufficient popularity or fame, to determine whether the performer is a performer of interest in the specification; there is no description of the necessary steps or any flowcharts in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.
As the MPEP 2161.01(i) states, “If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)… for lack of written description must be made.” The specification only states that an insignificant or less famous performer may be omitted, however, it does not provide any description regarding how the determination of an insignificant or less famous performer is made, or of whether a performer is or is not of sufficient popularity or fame.
Thus, because Applicant’s specification does not provide a disclosure of the algorithm in sufficient detail that programs the computer to perform the selected function, Claims 21, 31, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Because Claims 22-25, 27-30, 32-35, 37, 41, 43, and 45-46 depend upon Claims 21 and 31, these claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 21-25, 27-35, 37, 41, and 43-46 (Claims 22-25, 27-30, 32-35, 37, 41, 43, and 45-46 are rejected by way of inheritance) 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 regards as the invention.
Claims 21, 31, and 44 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 21 and 31 recite “determining the frame of the displayed media asset comprises a first portion depicting at least one performer of interest of the plurality of performers of the cast and a second portion which does not depict a performer of interest of the plurality of performers of the cast, wherein whether a performer is a performer of interest is determined based at least in part on a level of popularity or fame of the performer.”
Claim 44 recites “automatically causing the image to include the first portion of the frame is based at least in part on metadata for the frame indicating that the at least one performer of interest of sufficient popularity or fame is located at the first portion of the frame, and automatically causing the image not to include the second portion of the frame is based at least in part on the metadata indicating that the second portion of the frame does not include a depiction of a performer of interest or includes a performer of the plurality of performers that is determined not to be of sufficient popularity or fame to constitute a performer of interest.”
However, paragraph [0035] of Applicant’s specification states that “the media application may crop out… a portion where insignificant performers are presented,” and paragraph [0092] states that “certain portions of a scene (e.g., scene 101 of FIG. 1) associated with the extracted image may be cropped out, e.g., to omit insignificant or less famous performers,” without reciting any details regarding how a level of popularity or fame of a performer is determined, or how it is determined whether a performer is or is not of sufficient popularity or fame. For example, does level of popularity or fame depend on the number of followers a performer has, or the performer’s IMDB rankings, or the performer’s salary? And further, what is the threshold of a “sufficient” level of popularity or fame? Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the metes and bounds of the claim limitation.
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 21-25, 27-35, 37, 41, and 43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 21-25, 27-30, 41, and 43-46 are directed to a process. Claims 31-35 and 37 are directed to a machine. As such, each claim is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
The examiner has identified independent Claim 31 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claim 21.
Independent Claim 31 recites the following abstract ideas: “receiving, at a first time , data indicating a plurality of performers of a cast of a media asset; provide for display, to a user and during a consumption session occurring a second time that is later than the first time, a frame of the media asset, wherein the consumption session is associated with a first profile of the user with a content provider that is providing the media asset, wherein the first profile indicates a second profile of the user , and wherein the first profile is stored ; determine the frame of the displayed media asset comprises a first portion depicting at least one performer of interest of the plurality of performers of the cast and a second portion which does not depict a performer of interest of the plurality of performers of the cast, wherein whether a performer is a performer of interest is determined based at least in part on a level of popularity or fame of the performer; based at least in part on the determining, cause an image of the frame of the displayed media asset to be captured, including causing the image to be captured to include the first portion of the frame and not to include the second portion of the frame; based at least in part on received input , transmit a request to post a message in association with the second profile of the user, wherein the message comprises the captured image of the first portion of the frame of the media asset and does not include the second portion of the frame, and wherein the transmitting enables to access the message ; receive an indication that a response to the message associated with the second profile has been received ; determine, based on the indication received , whether the response to the message has been received from a profile of a first type of user or a profile of a second type of user, wherein the first type of user is a performer included in the plurality of performers of the cast of the media asset, and wherein the second type of user is a regular user; and provide, at the user, based on the indication received , a first notification or a second notification based on the determining, wherein: when the response is received from the profile of the first type of user, provide the first notification to the user, wherein an appearance of the first notification is based on an appearance of a first type of notifications for the first type of user, and wherein the appearance of the first type of notifications differs from an appearance of a second type of notifications for the second type of user, and when the response is received from the profile of the second type of user, provide the second notification to the user, wherein the appearance of the second notification is based on the second type of notifications for the second type of user.”
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities (i.e., receiving, at a first time, data indicating a plurality of performers of a cast of a media asset; provide for display, to a user and during a consumption session occurring a second time that is later than the first time, a frame of the media asset, wherein the consumption session is associated with a first profile of the user with a content provider that is providing the media asset, wherein the first profile indicates a second profile of the user, and wherein the first profile is stored; determine the frame of the displayed media asset comprises a first portion depicting at least one performer of interest of the plurality of performers of the cast and a second portion which does not depict a performer of interest of the plurality of performers of the cast, wherein whether a performer is a performer of interest is determined based at least in part on a level of popularity or fame of the performer; based at least in part on the determining, cause an image of the frame of the displayed media asset to be captured, including causing the image to be captured to include the first portion of the frame and not to include the second portion of the frame; based at least in part on received input, transmit a request to post a message in association with the second profile of the user, wherein the message comprises the captured image of the first portion of the frame of the media asset and does not include the second portion of the frame, and wherein the transmitting enables to access the message; receive an indication that a response to the message associated with the second profile has been received; determine, based on the indication received, whether the response to the message has been received from a profile of a first type of user or a profile of a second type of user, wherein the first type of user is a performer included in the plurality of performers of the cast of the media asset, and wherein the second type of user is a regular user; and provide, at the user, based on the indication received, a first notification or a second notification based on the determining, wherein: when the response is received from the profile of the first type of user, provide the first notification to the user, wherein an appearance of the first notification is based on an appearance of a first type of notifications for the first type of user, and wherein the appearance of the first type of notifications differs from an appearance of a second type of notifications for the second type of user, and when the response is received from the profile of the second type of user, provide the second notification to the user, wherein the appearance of the second notification is based on the second type of notifications for the second type of user), but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., a system comprising computer memory and control circuitry, one or more content provider servers, a device, a social network platform, automatically including / excluding data, a user interface element, an application programming interface (API) call, one or more social network servers, a plurality of devices, and a user interface). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system comprising computer memory and control circuitry, one or more content provider servers, a device, a social network platform, automatically including / excluding data, a user interface element, an application programming interface (API) call, one or more social network servers, a plurality of devices, and a user interface. The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic computers and servers receiving, displaying, storing, determining, processing, and transmitting information, generic communication means between servers, and generic interface displaying information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since they do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of using computer hardware (a system comprising computer memory and control circuitry, one or more content provider servers, a device, a social network platform, automatically including / excluding data, a user interface element, an application programming interface (API) call, one or more social network servers, a plurality of devices, and a user interface) 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. Therefore, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 22, 30, and 32 recite “a selectable option.” The additional element is a generic computer interface element used to implement the abstract idea, and it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor is it sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Dependent claims 23-25, 27-29, 33-35, 37, 41, and 43-46 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified above. They further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, dependent claims 22-25, 27-30, 32-35, 37, 41, and 43-46 are directed to an abstract idea, and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-25, 27-35, 37, 41, and 43-46 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Schneiderman, in combination with the other references relied upon, teaches receiving, at a first time and at one or more content provider servers, data indicating a plurality of performers of a cast of a media asset; providing for display, to a user and during a consumption session occurring at a device a second time that is later than the first time, a frame of the media asset, wherein the consumption session is associated with a first profile of the user with the one or more content provider servers of a content provider that is providing the media asset, and wherein the first profile indicates a second profile of the user with a social network platform; causing an image of the frame of the displayed media asset to be captured; based at least in part on received input via a user interface element provided by way of an application programming interface (API) call transmitted from the one or more content provider servers to one or more social network servers of the social network platform, transmitting a request, from the one or more content provider servers to the one or more social network servers, to post a message on the social network in association with the second profile of the user, wherein the message comprises the captured image of the first portion of the frame of the media asset, and wherein the transmitting enables a plurality of devices to access the message via the social network platform; receiving an indication, at the one or more content provider servers from the one or more social network servers, that a response to the message associated with the second profile has been received on the social network platform; determining, based on the indication received from the one or more social network servers, whether the response to the message has been received from a social network profile of a first type of user or a social network profile of a second type of user, wherein the first type of user is a performer included in the plurality of performers of the cast of the media asset, and wherein the second type of user is a regular user; and providing, at a user interface of the device of the user, by the one or more content provider servers based on the indication received from the social media platform, a first notification or a second notification based on the determining, wherein: when the response is received from the social network profile of the first type of user, providing the first notification to the user, wherein an appearance of the first notification is based on an appearance of a first type of notifications for the first type of user, and wherein the appearance of the first type of notifications differs from an appearance of a second type of notifications for the second type of user, and when the response is received from the social network profile of the second type of user, providing the second notification to the user, wherein the appearance of the second notification is based on the second type of notifications for the second type of user. However, the combination of references does not teach determining the frame of the displayed media asset comprises a first portion depicting at least one performer of interest of the plurality of performers of the cast and a second portion which does not depict a performer of interest of the plurality of performers of the cast, wherein whether a performer is a performer of interest is determined based at least in part on a level of popularity or fame of the performer; automatically causing the image to be captured to include the first portion of the frame and not to include the second portion of the frame; wherein a posted message comprises the captured image and does not include the second portion of the frame.
The closest NPL, “Watch-and-Comment as a Paradigm toward Ubiquitous Interactive Video Editing,” teaches an application for capturing digital ink and voice comments over individual video frames and segments, and the ability to share the content with other users. However, it does not teach cropping a frame based on popularity or fame of performers in the frame, nor does it teach determining whether responses received to messages have been received from a performer or from a regular user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 35 USC 101 Rejection of Claims 21-37 and 41-43: Independent claim 21 has been amended. The amended claims do not recite an abstract idea, provide a practical application, and recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. The features of the amended claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem. For example, as stated in paragraph [0035], by automatically excluding less relevant portions (not including any performers of interest of the cast of performers of the media asset) of the displayed frame from the captured image, and automatically including another portion of the frame depicting performer(s) of interest in the captured image, the claimed features "may enable less consumption of bandwidth or other computing resources, … when transmitting a request to post message" to a social network platform. For example, the relevant first portion of the frame (rather than the entire frame) may be stored, transmitted, and posted on the social media platform, to help conserve such resources and improve the efficiency of network transmission and device resource utilization. For at least these reasons, the specific, claimed features provide a technical improvement in the functioning of computer-based media processing and transmission systems, rather than to a method of organizing human activity.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The automatic exclusion of less relevant portions of a displayed frame from a captured image is a generic function of a computer, and any resulting lesser consumption of bandwidth or other computing resources would be an expected result of this function; when a computer stores and transmits less information, it expectedly uses less computing resources. This is not an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor does it provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 35 USC 103 Rejections of Claims 21-37 and 41-43: The cited art, whether taken alone or in combination, fail to teach or disclose the amended features of the claims.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art, is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARMA EL-CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3404. The examiner can normally be reached T-Sa 10am-6pm ET.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)270-1833. 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.
/KARMA A EL-CHANTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights