DETAILED 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 .
Status of Claims
Claims pending 1-20
Claims amended 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, 13-18 and 20
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 13, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, Examiner could not find support for the limitations “generating another prompt request for the ML model that includes the natural language query; receiving, from the ML model, another textual response; and displaying the other textual response on the user interface” in the originally filed specification.
Similarly, Regarding Claim 20, Examiner could not find support for the limitations “generating another prompt request for the ML model that includes the natural language query; receiving, from the ML model, another textual response; and displaying the other textual response on the user interface” in the originally filed specification.
The closest reference to these limitations can be found in paragraphs [0013] and [0035] of the originally filed specification.
[0013] The media application may transmit the prompt to an LLM that is trained to generate summaries in media content items. In some examples, the LLM may be stored on a server computer. In some examples, the LLM may be stored on the display device. In some examples, the display device is a virtual reality (VR) device or an augmented reality (AR) device, and the LLM is stored on a user device (e.g., the user's smartphone), which is connected to the VR device or the AR device. In response to the prompt, the LLM may generate a textual description (e.g., a summary) using the subtitle data. In some examples, the LLM is a conventional large language model (e.g., based on a transformer architecture), adapted to generate text in response to a text prompt provided as input. Such LLMs are trained on a large corpus of publicly available text, e.g., content from public databases and websites. In some examples, the LLM is configured to generate a textual response, which serves as a summary for the last period of time (e.g., last two minutes, last five minutes, etc.). In some examples, the LLM is a specially trained language model (e.g., trained using media content available on one or more streaming platforms) that can generate summaries using subtitle data.
[0035] A neural network includes multiple layers of interconnected neurons (e.g., nodes). The neural network may include an input layer, one or more hidden layers, and an output later. The output may include a sequence of output word probability distributions, where each output distribution represents the probability of the next word in the sequence given the input sequence so far. In some examples, the output may be represented as a probability distribution over the vocabulary or a subset of the vocabulary. The neural network(s) is configured to receive the word embeddings and generate an output, and, in some examples, the query activity (e.g., previous natural language queries 168 and prompt responses 132). The output may represent a version of the textual response. The output may include a sequence of output word probability distributions, where each output distribution represents the probability of the next word in the sequence given the input sequence so far. In some examples, the output may be represented as a probability distribution over the vocabulary or a subset of the vocabulary. The decoder is configured to receive the output and generate the textual summary 126 of a media content item 108. In some examples, the decoder may select the most likely instruction, sampling from a probability distribution, or using other techniques to generate coherent and valid source code. The LLM 122 includes a decoder configured to receive the output and generate a prompt response 132 with the textual summary 126.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations “receiving, from the ML model, another textual response;
and displaying the other textual response on the user interface” raises uncertainty since it is not clearly defined in the specification.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations “receive, from the ML model, another textual response;
and display the other textual response on the user interface” raises uncertainty since it is not clearly defined in the specification.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations “receiving, from the ML model, another textual response;
and displaying the other textual response on the user interface” raises uncertainty since it is not clearly defined in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stathacopoulos US Patent Publication No. 2021/0127169 in view of in view of Matson et al. US Patent Publication No. 2024/0419695 in further view of Doshi et al. US Patent Publication No. 2022/0392221.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 17, Stathacopoulos discloses a method, a display device [Figure 3] and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to execute operations [0021], the operations comprising:
initiating playback of a media content item on a user interface displayed on a display device [0076 & Figure 5A Display 500], the user interface including a user interface (UI) element [0077 & 0101; the media guidance application has generated notification 504 in Figure 5A, which lists multiple types of supplemental content that is available… output supplemental content (e.g., subtitles, audio and/or video content, etc.) associated with the progression point];
in response to a selection of the UI element, obtaining subtitle data for a portion of the media content item [0078 & 0101; the media guidance application may automatically generate for display the supplemental content on the second device in response to a user input selecting supplemental content.. output supplemental content (e.g., subtitles, audio and/or video content, etc.) associated with the progression point];
and displaying a UI object with the textual summary on the user interface [0005; the media guidance application may present supplemental content that includes a textual summary of the media asset at the progression point].
Stathacopoulos fails to clearly disclose generating a prompt request with a request to generate a textual summary by a machine- learning (ML) model using the subtitle data; receiving, from the ML model, a prompt response that includes the textual summary; and in response to receiving the prompt response: pausing playback of the media content item.
In an analogous art, Matson discloses generating a prompt request with a request to generate a textual summary by a machine-learning (ML) model using the subtitle data [0061; a model prompt generally refers to an input, such as text input, that can be provided to a machine learning model, such as a LLM, to generate an output in the form of a text summary… the content item is supplemented with the image caption such that the text summary may include aspects of the image caption]; and receiving, from the ML model, a prompt response that includes the textual summary [0061, 0064 & 0068; generate an output in the form of a text summary].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stathacopoulos and Matson, before the effective filing date of the invention, thereby resulting in more relevant or valuable search results presented to a user [Matson 0005].
Still, the combination of Stathacopoulos and Matson fails to disclose that in response to receiving the prompt response: pausing playback of the media content item.
In an analogous art Doshi discloses that in response to receiving the prompt response: pausing playback of the media content item [0029; The summary can include a time point of potential replay, the selection of which will resume content playback at this time point. The summary of content can then be transmitted to a user device… playback of the content of the user device can be paused, allowing for playback of the summary of content to be presented to the user on the user device].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stathacopoulos, Matson, and Doshi, before the effective filing date of the invention, for summarizing content using user queries [Doshi 0003].
Regarding Claims 2 and 10, the combination of Stathacopoulos, Matson, and Doshi discloses a method and a display device wherein the UI element includes an input field that enables entry of a natural language query about the media content item [Doshi 0075; the natural language query can comprise a text query transmitted by a user device].
Regarding Claims 3, 11, and 18 the combination of Stathacopoulos, Matson and Doshi, discloses a method, a device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium further comprising: in response to closing the UI object, resuming playback of the media content item [Doshi [0005 & 0068]; causing playback of the content to cease can comprise ceasing transmission of the content to the user device. The summary of the content can then be played by the user device instead of the content itself. Playback of the content by the user device can then be caused to resume].
Regarding Claims 4, 12, and 19, the combination of Stathacopoulos, Matson and Doshi discloses a method, a device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the UI element is overlaid on video content of the media content item [Stathacopoulos Figure 5A].
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, the combination of Stathacopoulos, Matson and Doshi discloses a method and a device, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, via the user interface, the natural language query about the media content item [Doshi 0005];
generating another prompt request for the ML model that includes the natural language query;
receiving, from the ML model, another textual response;
and displaying the other textual response on the user interface [Matson 0061, 0064 & 0068; generate an output in the form of a text summary].
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Stathacopoulos, Matson and Doshi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein the UI element includes an input field that enables entry of a natural language query about the media content item [Doshi 0075; the natural language query can comprise a text query transmitted by a user device];
and wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving, via the user interface, a natural language query about the media content item [Doshi 0005];
generating another prompt request for the ML model that includes the natural language query;
receiving, from the ML model, another textual response from the ML model; and displaying the other textual response on the user interface [Matson 0061, 0064 & 0068; generate an output in the form of a text summary].
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, the combination of Stathacopoulos, Matson and Doshi discloses a method, a device further comprising: generating, by an image-to-text model, textual data about image frames for the portion of the media content item by inputting the image frames to the image-to-text model [Matson 0006, 0027 & 0050; the image captioning manager 224 generates text captions or descriptions for images];
and generating, by the ML model, the textual summary based on the textual data [Matson 0061; a model prompt generally refers to an input, such as text input, that can be provided to a machine learning model, such as a LLM, to generate an output in the form of a text summary… the content item is supplemented with the image caption such that the text summary may include aspects of the image caption].
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stathacopoulos US Patent Publication No. 2021/0127169 in view of Matson et al. US Patent Publication No. 2024/0419695 in further view of Doshi et al. US Patent Publication No. 2022/0392221 in further view of Xu et al. US Patent Publication No. 2025/0203177.
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, the combination of Stathacopoulos, Matson and Doshi, discloses a method and a device, wherein the method further comprises
wherein generating the prompt request further includes a request to generate the textual summary by the ML model using information [Matson [0061; a model prompt generally refers to an input, such as text input, that can be provided to a machine learning model, such as a LLM, to generate an output in the form of a text summary… the content item is supplemented with the image caption such that the text summary may include aspects of the image caption]]
and wherein receiving, from the ML model, the prompt response that includes the textual summary comprises receiving the textual summary [Matson [0061, 0064 & 0068; generate an output in the form of a text summary]
The combination of Stathacopoulos, Matson and Doshi, fails to disclose a method and a device, wherein the method further comprises obtaining one or more signals about a user account for a user of the display device; and receiving the textual summary comprises receiving the textual summary personalized to the user account based on the information from the one or more signals about the user account.
In an analogous art, Xu discloses a method and a device, wherein the method further comprises obtaining one or more signals about a user account for a user of the display device [0053-0054; user preferences]; and receiving the textual summary comprises receiving the textual summary personalized to the user account based on the information from the one or more signals about the user account [0072-0073 & 0079-0081 The duration and content of the summary may be tailored to the user based on their viewing, watching, or listening habit on the media content service and on that particular piece of content].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stathacopoulos, Matson, Doshi and Xu, before the effective filing date of the invention, by automatically generating personalized and dynamic content summaries that adapt to the user's viewing habits and preferences [Xu 0036].
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stathacopoulos US Patent Publication No. 2021/0127169 in view of Matson et al. US Patent Publication No. 2024/0419695 in further view of Doshi et al. US Patent Publication No. 2022/0392221 in further view of McNeal US Patent Publication No. 2024/0095386.
Regarding Claims 7 and 15, the combination of Stathacopoulos, Matson and Doshi discloses providing a plurality of media content items for selection on the user interface [Stathacopoulos Figures 1-2], but fails to disclose that the plurality of media content items are associated with a plurality of streaming platforms; and in response to selection of the media content item from the plurality of media content items, streaming the media content item from a respective streaming platform.
In an analogous art, McNeal discloses a method further comprising that the plurality of media content items associated with a plurality of streaming platforms [Figure 4A]; and in response to selection of the media content item from the plurality of media content items, streaming the media content item from a respective streaming platform [0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Stathacopoulos, Matson, Doshi and McNeal, before the effective filing date of the invention, to create a system and method allowing users to interface with all available content, including streaming, video on demand, television, etc., in a seamless, streamlined, easily searchable format thereby eliminating the need for users to move from interface to interface [McNeal 0006].
Conclusion
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 SAHAR A RIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3005. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/SAHAR AQIL RIAZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424