DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed 19 September 2025 and 09 October 2025.
Claims 1-4 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 has amendments which have not been properly annotated or have the appropriate markings and are therefore non-compliant. Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states: (2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.” Since the amendments are minor, and for the sake of compact prosecution, the claims have been objected to rather than the Examiner issuing a notice of non-complaint amendment. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the §112 rejections, in light of the amendments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection has been withdrawn.
In response to Applicant's argument that the claims recite improvements, technical solutions to technical problems, and that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., complex, non-linear, and empirically-calibrated mathematical processing; threshold-based model switching; empirical coefficient matrices; conditional processing; dynamic calibration; delta functions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As such, these arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections not overcome.
Applicants argue that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under the Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank Int’l be withdrawn; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial note, the arguments are not compliant under 37 CFR 1.111(b) as they amount to a mere allegation of patent eligibility based upon a bare assertion of improvement. The Examiner respectfully does not find the assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, the Examiner does not find any evidence that the claimed aspects are any improvement over conventional systems. This argument also appears to be that the claims are patent eligible due to the arguments regarding the §103 rejections; however, the Examiner asserts that subject matter eligibility and novelty/non-obviousness are two separate inquires, neither being a benchmark for the other. See Amdocs Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Novelty is the question of whether the claimed invention is new. Inventiveness is the question of whether the claimed matter is invention at all, new or otherwise. The inventiveness inquiry of § 101 should therefore not be confused with the separate novelty inquiry of § 102 or the obviousness inquiry of § 103.”). As such, these arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections not overcome.
The Examiner also notes that this argument appears to be whether or not the use of computer or computing components for increased speed and efficiency makes the claims eligible; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)). As such, these arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections not overcome.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the Examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
In response to Applicant's argument that Gaston has a different mathematical focus, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure (or method) is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Also, as noted above, the argued subject matter is not claimed whatsoever in the amended claims. The Examiner refers Applicants to the updated rejection below, as necessitated by amendments.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the Applicants in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in the Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the Applicants only argue that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
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 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). However, the claim(s) recite(s) computing and updating submission scores which is an abstract idea of organizing human activity as well as the abstract idea of performing computations in accordance with a mathematical formula on that activity.
The limitations of:
In claim 1: “applying a processing operation to the electronic submission to compute a submission score using machine learning algorithms that analyze submission content, classification, and semantic characteristics to generate numerical scores for prioritization ;making available the electronic submission based, at least in part, on the submission score; by modifying the machine learning algorithms using the evaluation as training data to improve future scoring accuracy”
In claims 9 and 16: “make available an electronic submission based, at least in part, on a submission score, wherein the electronic submission is associated with a submission identifier; receive one or more digital signals indicative of an evaluation of the electronic submission; and initiate an update to a submission scoring processing operation based, at least in part, on the evaluation,”
...as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activities--fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and/or mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1). Method claim 16 is devoid of structure whatsoever and thus are only directed towards an abstract idea. Next, regarding claim 9, other than reciting “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, responsive to execution by a computing system, cause the computing system to,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from the methods of organizing human interactions grouping and/or from the mathematical concept grouping. For example, but for the “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, responsive to execution by a computing system, cause the computing system to, “applying,” “making,” “updating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually collecting submissions for which a process of scoring is applied (i.e. mathematical scoring) which is a business relation/fundamental economic practice/ managing personal behavior or mathematical concept of performing some sort arithmetic scoring on the submissions. However, if possible, the Examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, the limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mathematical concept, while some of the limitations may be performed in the mind after certain limitations are performed, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES). Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). Method claim 16 is devoid of structure whatsoever and thus do not integrate the claims into a practical application. The “receiving” and “storing” steps are insignificant data gathering activities. The “through a computer-implemented interface that displays submissions ordered by their computed scores” is simply a post solution output. Next, claim 9 only recites one additional element – using a computer system to perform the steps. The computer system in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of electronic data storage, query, retrieval and arithmetic) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by 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 - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recitation of the “communications network,” “digital signals,” “digital content indicative of an electronic submission,” are only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claim does not include a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). Method claim 16 is devoid of structure whatsoever and thus do not amount to significantly more. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the combination of additional elements of using a computer system to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Reevaluating here in step 2B, the “receiving” and “storing” step(s) which are insignificant extrasolution activities and “computer-implemented interface that displays” which is simply a post solution output are also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as is here). Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are dependent on claims 1, 9, and 16 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 16. Therefore, claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 recite the same abstract idea of “computing and updating submission scores.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting the access identifiers, process, and information availability, which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 9, and 16, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 1-20 are therefore not eligible subject matter, even when considered as a whole.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al. (US PG Pub. 20110125861) and further in view of Ferreira et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0174190).
As per claim 1, Evans discloses a method, non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, responsive to execution by a computing system, cause the computing system to: the method comprising (digital content review and distribution system, server, Evans ¶4):
receiving one or more digital signals indicative of a first account on a communications network (First, the authors 100-1 through 100-N register with the review and distribution agent 102 via the user devices 94-1 through 94-N (step 400). During registration, the authors 100-1 through 100-N agree to review content submitted by others of the authors 100-1 through 100-N in exchange for review and potentially distribution of their own content. For example, the author 100-1 may agree to review two digital assets submitted by others of the authors 100-2 through 100-N for each digital asset submitted by the author 100-1 for review and potentially distribution. The agreements may be enforced by refusing to distribute content submitted by the authors 100-1 through 100-N until the authors have met the requirements of the agreement, Evans ¶65; database, master server, ¶22);
receiving one or more digital signals indicative of at least registration information for a second account, the registration information including an access identifier for the communications network (First, the authors 100-1 through 100-N register with the review and distribution agent 102 via the user devices 94-1 through 94-N (step 400). During registration, the authors 100-1 through 100-N agree to review content submitted by others of the authors 100-1 through 100-N in exchange for review and potentially distribution of their own content. For example, the author 100-1 may agree to review two digital assets submitted by others of the authors 100-2 through 100-N for each digital asset submitted by the author 100-1 for review and potentially distribution. The agreements may be enforced by refusing to distribute content submitted by the authors 100-1 through 100-N until the authors have met the requirements of the agreement, Evans ¶65; Further note that the feedback may include identifiers (IDs) identifying feedback from each of the group of reviewers, ¶68);
receiving digital content indicative of an electronic submission (At some point in time, one of the authors 100-1 through 100-N submits content to the review and distribution agent 102 for review and potentially distribution (step 402). For this discussion, the author 100-1 is the author that submits the content. When submitting the content, the content and metadata for the content are provided to the review and distribution agent 102. Alternatively, only the metadata for the content may be provided to the review and distribution agent 102. The metadata may be defined by the author 100-1, automatically populated, or both. The metadata preferably includes a target quality level for the content selected by the author 100-1. In addition or alternatively, the metadata may include a content type such as video, image, or audio; file format; file size; resolution; title; brief description; keywords; genre or content category such as comedy, history, drama, mystery, action, science fiction, or the like; sub-genre or sub-category such as standup, sitcom, movie, or the like; requested distribution scheme such as free, copyrighted, ad-based, payment-on-demand, or the like; usage polices such as DRM restrictions for the content when distributed; recommended reviewers; non-recommended reviewers; or the like, Evans ¶66);
storing the electronic submission according to a submission identifier (In addition or alternatively, the metadata may include a content type such as video, image, or audio; file format; file size; resolution; title; brief description; keywords; genre or content category such as comedy, history, drama, mystery, action, science fiction, or the like; sub-genre or sub-category such as standup, sitcom, movie, or the like; requested distribution scheme such as free, copyrighted, ad-based, payment-on-demand, or the like; usage polices such as DRM restrictions for the content when distributed; recommended reviewers; non-recommended reviewers; or the like, Evans ¶66);
applying a processing operation to the electronic submission to compute a submission [level] (Next, the review and distribution agent 102 effects review of the submitted content according to the present invention (step 404). The details of the review process are discussed below in detail with respect to FIG. 10. In the preferred embodiment, the review and distribution agent 102 effects an iterative review process based on quality level. More specifically, the author 100-1 selects a target quality level for the submitted content. The target quality level may be between and including a minimum quality level, which may be quality level 1, and a maximum quality level, which may be quality level 3. The submitted content is iteratively reviewed by groups of the reviewers 100-2 through 100-N selected for each quality level up to the target quality level or until the submitted content fails to satisfy the requirements of a quality level. Based on the review, the content is assigned a rated quality level. The rated quality level may be used to define, for example, a value of the content to a commercial distribution entity. The review may also check for copyright infringement and the correctness or accuracy of the metadata associated with the submitted content. In addition, the review may allow reviewers, which are select ones of the other authors/reviewers 100-2 through 100-N, to provide comments or other feedback to the author 100-1 regarding the submitted content, Evans ¶67);
making available the electronic submission based, at least in part, on the submission score through a computer-implemented interface that displays submissions ordered by their computed score (In this embodiment, the review process is an iterative review process based on quality level where submitted content is rated at one of a number of quality levels. Each of the quality levels may have associated criteria to be used by reviewers to determine if submitted content satisfies the requirements of the quality level. First, once content is submitted for review by, for example, the author 100-1, the review and distribution agent 102 selects a group of reviewers from the reviewers 100-2 through 100-N for a first or minimum quality level based on credentials of the reviewers 100-2 through 100-N (step 500). For each of the reviewers 100-1 through 100-N, the review and distribution agent 102 generates the credentials of the reviewer based on, for example, a total number of digital assets submitted by the author/reviewer for review, a number or percentage of the total number of digital assets reviewed for each quality level, a total number of digital assets submitted by other authors and reviewed by the reviewer at each of the quality levels, and a percent deviation from the other reviewers at each quality level for the digital assets reviewed by the reviewer. In addition, the review and distribution agent 102 may maintain these statistics for a number of sub-categories within the quality levels such as content type, genre, sub-genre, requested distribution scheme, run time if applicable, and the like. This may be beneficial if specialized reviewers within each quality level are desired, Evans ¶70);
receiving one or more digital signals indicative of an evaluation of the electronic submission from the first account(After receiving the feedback, the author 100-1 then decides either to revise the content based on the feedback and resubmit the content for review or to distribute the content at the rated quality level (step 408). Once the author 100-1 decides to distribute the content, the review and distribution agent 102 effects transfer of the content to one or more distribution entities, such as the distribution entity 96, according to the desired distribution scheme and usage polices for the content. In one embodiment, the content is submitted to the review and distribution agent 102 in step 402. As such, the review and distribution agent 102 may transfer the content to the distribution entity 96 from the content database 106. In another embodiment, the review and distribution agent 102 may effect a transfer of the content from the user device 94-1 to the distribution entity 96, Evans ¶69) and.
While Evans discloses a system and method for evaluating distributed digital content, Evans does not expressly disclose a submission score; using machine learning algorithms that analyze submission content classification, and semantic characteristics to generate numerical scores for prioritization; by modifying the machine learning algorithms using the evaluation as training data to improve future scoring accuracy .
However, Ferreira teaches submission score; using machine learning algorithms that analyze submission content classification, and semantic characteristics to generate numerical scores for prioritization; by modifying the machine learning algorithms using the evaluation as training data to improve future scoring accuracy (Additionally or alternatively, the social networking system 106 can assign a weight to one or more of the factors described above when calculating the predicted user engagement score. For example, the social networking system 106 may calculate a predicted user engagement score for a particular timeframe and for a particular digital content item to be posted by a user by calculating the following three factors: the number of audience members predicted to be available to consume content, the amount of digital content items available for the audience members to consume, and the number of digital content items posted on the social networking system within the last week that contain the same or similar keywords as those in the digital content item to be posted. The social networking system 106 may then assign a weight to each of these three factors to increase or decrease the importance of any individual factor. For example, the social networking system 106 can assign a weight of 0.025 to the number of audience members predicted to be available to consume content, a weight of 0.020 to the amount of digital content items available for the audience members to consume, and a weight of 0.030 to the number of digital content items posted on the social networking system within the last week that contain the same or similar keywords as those in the digital content item to be posted. This weight distribution is merely exemplary. A person having ordinary skill in the art will recognize that any set or kind of weight may be assigned to any number or combination of factors, Ferreira ¶58-¶59; machine learning models, ¶66) (Examiner interprets the weights affecting the score as the ability to generate numerical scores for prioritization).
Both the Ferreira and Evans references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with digital content evaluation. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Ferreira’s ability to provide scores for digital content in Evans’ system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a digital content management system that is able to provide more accurate evaluations of digital content.
The motivation being that conventional social networking systems suffer from limitations that prevent users from managing shared content items to optimize user engagement (Ferreira ¶4).
As per claim 2, Evans and Ferreira disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Evans further discloses receiving one or more digital signals indicative of at least one initial processing parameter; and implementing the processing operation based, at least in part, on the at least one initial processing parameter by configuring the machine learning algorithms with the initial parameters to customize scoring for specific organizational needs (Additionally or alternatively, the social networking system 106 can assign a weight to one or more of the factors described above when calculating the predicted user engagement score. For example, the social networking system 106 may calculate a predicted user engagement score for a particular timeframe and for a particular digital content item to be posted by a user by calculating the following three factors: the number of audience members predicted to be available to consume content, the amount of digital content items available for the audience members to consume, and the number of digital content items posted on the social networking system within the last week that contain the same or similar keywords as those in the digital content item to be posted. The social networking system 106 may then assign a weight to each of these three factors to increase or decrease the importance of any individual factor. For example, the social networking system 106 can assign a weight of 0.025 to the number of audience members predicted to be available to consume content, a weight of 0.020 to the amount of digital content items available for the audience members to consume, and a weight of 0.030 to the number of digital content items posted on the social networking system within the last week that contain the same or similar keywords as those in the digital content item to be posted. This weight distribution is merely exemplary. A person having ordinary skill in the art will recognize that any set or kind of weight may be assigned to any number or combination of factors, Ferreira ¶58-¶59; machine learning models, ¶66).
As per claims 3, Evans and Ferreira disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Evans further discloses computing a plurality of available access identifiers for the first account, wherein each access identifier in the plurality is uniquely associated with a specific submitter account registration and is generated based on account registration parameters; wherein the method further comprises: receiving one or more digital signals indicative of a plurality of candidate accounts, the candidate accounts to include a corresponding plurality of candidate available access identifiers that correspond to potential submitter account registrations for the first account's collaboration infrastructure instance (register with the review and distribution system, Evans ¶65; Further note that the feedback may include identifiers (IDs) identifying feedback from each of the group of reviewers, ¶68; credentials of the reviewer, ¶70) (Examiner interprets the identifiers which identify reviewers as the ability to have unique identifiers for users of the system i.e. access identifiers).
As per claim 4, Evans and Ferreira disclose as shown above with respect to claim 3. Evans further discloses removing the one of the candidate access identifiers from the plurality of available access identifiers responsive to receiving the registration information (Further note that the feedback may include identifiers (IDs) identifying feedback from each of the group of reviewers, Evans ¶68) (Examiner interprets the identifiers which identify reviewers as the ability to have unique identifiers for users of the system i.e. access identifiers being removed or unavailable once taken by another user).
As per claim 5, Evans and Ferreira disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1. Evans further discloses making available a plurality of prior electronic submissions; receiving one or more digital signals indicative of at least one user evaluation of at least one of the plurality of prior electronic submissions; and implementing the processing operation based, at least in part, on the at least one user evaluation (In one embodiment, the review process is an iterative process based on quality level. First, the content review and distribution agent selects a group of reviewers for a first quality level, where the first quality level is less than the target quality and may be, for example, a minimum quality level. Once the content is reviewed, the content review and distribution agent determines whether to continue the review to the next quality level. The content review and distribution agent may automatically determine whether to proceed to the next quality level based on the feedback from the reviewers. If the content meets the requirements of the first quality level, then the review proceeds to the next quality level. The process continues until the digital content is reviewed to the target quality level or fails to satisfy the requirements for a quality level. Alternatively, in order to determine whether to continue to the next quality level, the content distribution agent may provide the feedback to the author, where the author decides whether to submit the content for review at the next quality level based on the feedback. The process continues until the digital content is reviewed to the target quality level or the author chooses to discontinue the review process based on the feedback. Once the review process is complete, the author may choose to distribute the content via one or more commercial or peer-to-peer distribution entities, Evans ¶5).
As per claim 6, Evans and Ferreira disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1. Evans further discloses receiving one or more digital signals indicative of a response to the electronic submission; determining the second account associated with the electronic submission via the submission identifier; and making available the response to the second account (First, the authors 100-1 through 100-N register with the review and distribution agent 102 via the user devices 94-1 through 94-N (step 400). During registration, the authors 100-1 through 100-N agree to review content submitted by others of the authors 100-1 through 100-N in exchange for review and potentially distribution of their own content. For example, the author 100-1 may agree to review two digital assets submitted by others of the authors 100-2 through 100-N for each digital asset submitted by the author 100-1 for review and potentially distribution. The agreements may be enforced by refusing to distribute content submitted by the authors 100-1 through 100-N until the authors have met the requirements of the agreement, Evans ¶65; database, master server, ¶22).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to repeat the processes in claim 1 for second or additional accounts because duplication is obvious, MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. The duplication of parts (or steps) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Examiner finds no evidence that performing the processes in claims 1, 9, and 16 for second or additional accounts would produce new and unexpected results as compared to performing the processes in claim 1 for only a first account.
As per claim 7, Evans and Ferreira disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Evans further discloses applying the processing operation to determine a prior electronic submission; and implementing the processing operation based, at least in part, on the determined prior electronic submission (In one embodiment, the review process is an iterative process based on quality level. First, the content review and distribution agent selects a group of reviewers for a first quality level, where the first quality level is less than the target quality and may be, for example, a minimum quality level. Once the content is reviewed, the content review and distribution agent determines whether to continue the review to the next quality level. The content review and distribution agent may automatically determine whether to proceed to the next quality level based on the feedback from the reviewers. If the content meets the requirements of the first quality level, then the review proceeds to the next quality level. The process continues until the digital content is reviewed to the target quality level or fails to satisfy the requirements for a quality level. Alternatively, in order to determine whether to continue to the next quality level, the content distribution agent may provide the feedback to the author, where the author decides whether to submit the content for review at the next quality level based on the feedback. The process continues until the digital content is reviewed to the target quality level or the author chooses to discontinue the review process based on the feedback. Once the review process is complete, the author may choose to distribute the content via one or more commercial or peer-to-peer distribution entities, Evans ¶5).
As per claim 8, Evans and Ferreira disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Evans further discloses grouping a plurality of electronic submissions based, at least in part, on a plurality of respective submission scores; applying the processing operation to compute group-level information for the plurality of electronic submissions; and making available the group-level information to the first account (genres, sub-genres, above quality levels, Evans ¶71).
Claim(s) 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans et al. (US PG Pub. 20110125861) and further in view of Gaston (US PG Pub. 2015/0358681).
As per claims 9 and 16, Evans discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, responsive to execution by a computing system, cause the computing system to: (digital content review and distribution system, server, Evans ¶4):
receive one or more digital signals indicative of a first account (First, the authors 100-1 through 100-N register with the review and distribution agent 102 via the user devices 94-1 through 94-N (step 400). During registration, the authors 100-1 through 100-N agree to review content submitted by others of the authors 100-1 through 100-N in exchange for review and potentially distribution of their own content. For example, the author 100-1 may agree to review two digital assets submitted by others of the authors 100-2 through 100-N for each digital asset submitted by the author 100-1 for review and potentially distribution. The agreements may be enforced by refusing to distribute content submitted by the authors 100-1 through 100-N until the authors have met the requirements of the agreement, Evans ¶65; database, master server, ¶22);
make available an electronic submission based, at least in part, on a submission [level], wherein the electronic submission is associated with a submission identifier (In this embodiment, the review process is an iterative review process based on quality level where submitted content is rated at one of a number of quality levels. Each of the quality levels may have associated criteria to be used by reviewers to determine if submitted content satisfies the requirements of the quality level. First, once content is submitted for review by, for example, the author 100-1, the review and distribution agent 102 selects a group of reviewers from the reviewers 100-2 through 100-N for a first or minimum quality level based on credentials of the reviewers 100-2 through 100-N (step 500). For each of the reviewers 100-1 through 100-N, the review and distribution agent 102 generates the credentials of the reviewer based on, for example, a total number of digital assets submitted by the author/reviewer for review, a number or percentage of the total number of digital assets reviewed for each quality level, a total number of digital assets submitted by other authors and reviewed by the reviewer at each of the quality levels, and a percent deviation from the other reviewers at each quality level for the digital assets reviewed by the reviewer. In addition, the review and distribution agent 102 may maintain these statistics for a number of sub-categories within the quality levels such as content type, genre, sub-genre, requested distribution scheme, run time if applicable, and the like. This may be beneficial if specialized reviewers within each quality level are desired, Evans ¶70);
receive one or more digital signals indicative of an evaluation of the electronic submission (At some point in time, one of the authors 100-1 through 100-N submits content to the review and distribution agent 102 for review and potentially distribution (step 402). For this discussion, the author 100-1 is the author that submits the content. When submitting the content, the content and metadata for the content are provided to the review and distribution agent 102. Alternatively, only the metadata for the content may be provided to the review and distribution agent 102. The metadata may be defined by the author 100-1, automatically populated, or both. The metadata preferably includes a target quality level for the content selected by the author 100-1. In addition or alternatively, the metadata may include a content type such as video, image, or audio; file format; file size; resolution; title; brief description; keywords; genre or content category such as comedy, history, drama, mystery, action, science fiction, or the like; sub-genre or sub-category such as standup, sitcom, movie, or the like; requested distribution scheme such as free, copyrighted, ad-based, payment-on-demand, or the like; usage polices such as DRM restrictions for the content when distributed; recommended reviewers; non-recommended reviewers; or the like, Evans ¶66);
initiate an update to a submission scoring processing operation based, at least in part, on the evaluation (After receiving the feedback, the author 100-1 then decides either to revise the content based on the feedback and resubmit the content for review or to distribute the content at the rated quality level (step 408). Once the author 100-1 decides to distribute the content, the review and distribution agent 102 effects transfer of the content to one or more distribution entities, such as the distribution entity 96, according to the desired distribution scheme and usage polices for the content. In one embodiment, the content is submitted to the review and distribution agent 102 in step 402. As such, the review and distribution agent 102 may transfer the content to the distribution entity 96 from the content database 106. In another embodiment, the review and distribution agent 102 may effect a transfer of the content from the user device 94-1 to the distribution entity 96, Evans ¶69);
While Evans discloses a system and method for evaluating distributed digital content, Evans does not expressly disclose a submission score.
However, Gaston teaches submission score (The senders 51 would send a request for the screeners 52 (through the server 55) to evaluate, rate or score a certain subject that may or may not occur in the immediate future. The screeners 52 would comply with the request and send their results to the server 55 (block 53). Within the server, a process may be run which will analyze all of the answers received (block 551), determine a final answer (block 552), and/or sell or distribute said final answer (block 553). Additionally, the screeners performance scores would not be derived from receivers, but may be derived from the accuracy of their answers based on what actually happened in that future event (block 554). The more accurate a screener is, the more weight is put on his/her answers, Gaston ¶44).
Both the Gaston and Evans references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with digital content evaluation. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Gaston’s ability to provide scores for digital content in Evans’ system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a digital content management system that is able to provide more accurate evaluations of digital content.
The motivation being that in the past, digital content would be received from numerous sources and distributed to a list of receivers. Good, useful, or desired digital content would be distributed to these receivers, but a vast majority of the digital content would be of poor content quality. As a result, very few users of such a service would want to receive the digital content of poor quality. Content evaluation is necessary to filter content and remove content that is of poor quality. Such poor quality content may damage the reputation of the server hosting the content; the damaged reputation leading to significant loss of business, for example, by losing internet traffic to a website. Systems and methods for evaluating content using a group of human beings to evaluate the usefulness of digital content for other like-minded human beings filters content in a way to eliminate many problems of prior content evaluation (Gaston ¶3-¶5).
As per claim 10, Evans and Gaston disclose as shown above with respect to claim 9. Evans further discloses wherein the instructions to further cause the computing system to: receive one or more digital signals indicative of a response to the electronic submission; determine a second account associated with the electronic submission via the submission identifier; and make available the response to the second account (First, the authors 100-1 through 100-N register with the review and distribution agent 102 via the user devices 94-1 through 94-N (step 400). During registration, the authors 100-1 through 100-N agree to review content submitted by others of the authors 100-1 through 100-N in exchange for review and potentially distribution of their own content. For example, the author 100-1 may agree to review two digital assets submitted by others of the authors 100-2 through 100-N for each digital asset submitted by the author 100-1 for review and potentially distribution. The agreements may be enforced by refusing to distribute content submitted by the authors 100-1 through 100-N until the authors have met the requirements of the agreement, Evans ¶65; database, master server, ¶22).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to repeat the processes in claims 9 and 16 for second or additional accounts because duplication is obvious, MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. The duplication of parts (or steps) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Examiner finds no evidence that performing the processes in claims 1, 9, and 16 for second or additional accounts would produce new and unexpected results as compared to performing the processes in claims 9 and 16 for only a first account.
As per claim 11, Evans and Gaston disclose as shown above with respect to claim 9. Evans further discloses wherein the instructions to further cause the computing system to: receive one or more digital signals indicative of at least one initial processing parameter; and cause the submission scoring processing operation to be implemented based, at least in part, on the at least one initial processing parameter (Authors/reviewers 100-1 through 100-N are associated with the user devices 94-1 through 94-N. The authors/reviewers 100-1 through 100-N are persons that both submit content to the central review and distribution server 92 for review and potentially distribution and agree to review content submitted by other persons. Depending on the particular role that the authors/reviewers 100-1 through 100-N are performing at a particular point in the following discussion, the authors/reviewers 100-1 through 100-N may alternatively be referred to as either authors 100-1 through 100-N or reviewers 100-1 through 100-N, Evans ¶60).
As per claim 12, Evans and Gaston disclose as shown above with respect to claim 9. Evans further discloses wherein the instructions to further cause the computing system to: receive one or more digital signals indicative of a plurality of candidate accounts, the candidate accounts to include a corresponding plurality of available access identifiers (register with the review and distribution system, Evans ¶65; Further note that the feedback may include identifiers (IDs) identifying feedback from each of the group of reviewers, ¶68; credentials of the reviewer, ¶70) (Examiner interprets the identifiers which identify reviewers as the ability to have unique identifiers for users of the system i.e. access identifiers).
As per claim 13, Evans and Gaston disclose as shown above with respect to claim 9. Evans further discloses wherein the instructions to further cause the computing system to: make available a plurality of electronic submissions based, at least in part, on a corresponding plurality of submission scores; responsive to an update of the submission scoring processing operations, make available the plurality of electronic submissions based, at least in part, on a corresponding plurality of updated submission scores (In one embodiment, the review process is an iterative process based on quality level. First, the content review and distribution agent selects a group of reviewers for a first quality level, where the first quality level is less than the target quality and may be, for example, a minimum quality level. Once the content is reviewed, the content review and distribution agent determines whether to continue the review to the next quality level. The content review and distribution agent may automatically determine whether to proceed to the next quality level based on the feedback from the reviewers. If the content meets the requirements of the first quality level, then the review proceeds to the next quality level. The process continues until the digital content is reviewed to the target quality level or fails to satisfy the requirements for a quality level. Alternatively, in order to determine whether to continue to the next quality level, the content distribution agent may provide the feedback to the author, where the author decides whether to submit the content for review at the next quality level based on the feedback. The process continues until the digital content is reviewed to the target quality level or the author chooses to discontinue the review process based on the feedback. Once the review process is complete, the author may choose to distribute the content via one or more commercial or peer-to-peer distribution entities, Evans ¶5).
As per claim 14, Evans and Gaston disclose as shown above with respect to claim 13. Evans further discloses wherein the instructions to further cause the computing system to: make available group-level information for groups of the plurality of electronic submissions, the groups to be computed by the submission scoring processing operation based, at least in part, on the submission scores (genres, sub-genres, above quality levels, Evans ¶71).
As per claim 15, Evans and Gaston disclose as shown above with respect to claim 9. Evans further discloses wherein the instructions to further cause the computing system to: receive one or more digital signals indicative of an additional account; and make available the electronic submission to the additional account (Once the content is reviewed, the content review and distribution agent determines whether to continue the review to the next quality level. The content review and distribution agent may automatically determine whether to proceed to the next quality level based on the feedback from the reviewers. If the content meets the requirements of the first quality level, then the review proceeds to the next quality level. The process continues until the digital content is reviewed to the target quality level or fails to satisfy the requirements for a quality level, Evans ¶5).
As per claim 17, Evans and Gaston disclose as shown above with respect to claim 16. Evans further discloses receiving one or more digital signals indicative of registration information for a first account, the registration information including an access identifier; receiving one or more digital signals indicative of an electronic submission; making available, via a submission identifier, the electronic submission for scoring by a processing operation and/or for evaluation by a second account, the evaluation by the second account to initiate an update to the processing operation (In one embodiment, the review process is an iterative process based on quality level. First, the content review and distribution agent selects a group of reviewers for a first quality level, where the first quality level is less than the target quality and may be, for example, a minimum quality level. Once the content is reviewed, the content review and distribution agent determines whether to continue the review to the next quality level. The content review and distribution agent may automatically determine whether to proceed to the next quality level based on the feedback from the reviewers. If the content meets the requirements of the first quality level, then the review proceeds to the next quality level. The process continues until the digital content is reviewed to the target quality level or fails to satisfy the requirements for a quality level. Alternatively, in order to determine whether to continue to the next quality level, the content distribution agent may provide the feedback to the author, where the author decides whether to submit the content for review at the next quality level based on the feedback. The process continues until the digital content is reviewed to the target quality level or the author chooses to discontinue the review process based on the feedback. Once the review process is complete, the author may choose to distribute the content via one or more commercial or peer-to-peer distribution entities, Evans ¶5).
As per claim 18, Evans and Gaston disclose as shown above with respect to claim 16. Evans further discloses receiving one or more digital signals indicative of a response to the electronic submission; determining the first account associated with the electronic submission based, at least in part, on the submission identifier; and making available the response to the first account (At some point in time, one of the authors 100-1 through 100-N submits content to the review and distribution agent 102 for review and potentially distribution (step 402). For this discussion, the author 100-1 is the author that submits the content. When submitting the content, the content and metadata for the content are provided to the review and distribution agent 102. Alternatively, only the metadata for the content may be provided to the review and distribution agent 102. The metadata may be defined by the author 100-1, automatically populated, or both. The metadata preferably includes a target quality level for the content selected by the author 100-1. In addition or alternatively, the metadata may include a content type such as video, image, or audio; file format; file size; resolution; title; brief description; keywords; genre or content category such as comedy, history, drama, mystery, action, science fiction, or the like; sub-genre or sub-category such as standup, sitcom, movie, or the like; requested distribution scheme such as free, copyrighted, ad-based, payment-on-demand, or the like; usage polices such as DRM restrictions for the content when distributed; recommended reviewers; non-recommended reviewers; or the like, Evans ¶66).
As per claim 19, Evans and Gaston disclose as shown above with respect to claims 3 and 16. Evans further discloses removing the access identifier from a plurality of available access identifiers (Further note that the feedback may include identifiers (IDs) identifying feedback from each of the group of reviewers, Evans ¶68) (Examiner interprets the identifiers which identify reviewers as the ability to have unique identifiers for users of the system i.e. access identifiers being removed or unavailable once taken by another user).
As per claim 20, Evans and Gaston disclose as shown above with respect to claim 16. Evans further discloses applying the processing operation to determine a similar prior electronic submission; and updating the processing operation based, at least in part, on the determination of the similar prior electronic submission (genres, sub-genres, above quality levels, Evans ¶71).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW B WHITAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights