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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the Non-final Office Action mailed on 7/22/2025, Applicant has filed an amendment on 10/22/2025. In this reply, Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to include a step for generating a podcast customization interface associated with a first content item, wherein the generating comprises generating a first interface, for submitting an indication of a first podcast customizing feature, based upon an analysis of the first content item. Independent claims 11 and 16 were amended to incorporate a related concept in a broader fashion that does not include the generation of a customizing feature interface based upon an analysis of the first content item- "a podcast customization interface comprising a first dynamic interface for submitting an indication of a podcast customizing feature."
Applicant has also alleged that the current amendments would overcome the previously applied prior art of record (i.e., Gardner, et al. (U.S. Patent: 12,008,332)) (Remarks, Pages 7-8). These comments have been considered and is indicated that these allegations are moot with respect to Claim 1 due to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amended claims and further in view of Basu, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2008/0300872 A1). For the broader limitations brought into claims 11 and 16, it is maintained that these features are addressed by the teachings of Gardner as will be explained in the Response to Arguments section and set forth in the proceeding rejections.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101:
In regards to the patent subject matter eligibility rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant alleges that the instant amendments "are believed to overcome the rejection" (Remarks, Page 7).
In response and as noted in the preamble, the independent claims have incorporated the concepts discussed in the 10/21/2025 interview with varying degrees of specificity. First in regards to Claim 1, the added feature regards the generation of a specific podcast customization interface that is customized for a first content item based upon analysis of that content item. The instant specification explains that such rules for a computer interface allow for computer-automation of podcast creation (see Paragraph 0101). Accordingly, due to an improvement in customized computer interfaces allowing for podcast customization under the step 2A prong 2 analysis, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-10 has been withdrawn.
Independent claims 11 and 16 include the added broader limitation regarding “a podcast customization interface comprising a first dynamic interface for submitting an indication of a podcast customizing feature.” This limitation does not feature the details of a customizable, content-specific computer interface leading to the improvement under step 2A prong 2. Instead, a more generic interface is added which includes a dynamic interface. It is noted that dynamic interfaces well-known in regards to computer-interfaces, e.g., based upon an earlier menu selection, preferences, etc. and the dynamic nature of the claimed interface is not necessarily dependent upon the ingested podcast content for summarization and generation as is the case with claim 1. Accordingly, the limitations added to independent claims 11 and 16 do not amount to an inventive concept because they are directed towards a generic computer interface in step 2A prong 2 and 2B for carrying out data gathering. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections in regards to claims 11 and 16 and their associated dependent claims have been maintained and updated to reflect the claim language altered in the instant claim amendment.
35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2):
Applicant has generally alleged that the current amendments would overcome the previously applied prior art of record (i.e., Gardner, et al. (U.S. Patent: 12,008,332) (Remarks, Pages 7-8).
These comments have been considered and is indicated that these allegations are moot with respect to Claim 1 and its dependents due to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amended claims and further in view of Basu, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2008/0300872 A1).
In regards to independent claims 11 and 16, the following limitation was added to the receiving step- “a podcast customization interface comprising a first dynamic interface for submitting an indication of a podcast customizing feature.” This added limitation does not describe how the interface is dynamic in the manner of claim 1 in that it does not require the analysis of a first content item. It is submitted that Gardner teaches a dynamic interface for podcast content customization- "interactive interfaces allow users to dynamically control and customize the summarization on demand" (Col. 19, Lines 61-64; see also interfaces allowing for dynamic customization in Col. 20, Lines 29-33 and the discussion of levels of abstraction in the interface dynamically determined in Col. 24, Lines 39-50; further see Col. 28, Lines 39-44). Accordingly, Applicant allegations directed towards claims 11, 16, and their respective dependent claims are not found to be persuasive.
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 11-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed towards a patent ineligible mental process under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Independent claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims regard a process that, as drafted under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
In regards to the process of claims 11 and 16 the claimed functionality could be practiced as a mental process in the following manner:
receiving, (a human such as a podcaster can receive a written list of a podcast to be recording specifying the topic and style indications (e.g., length of time, segments, emotions/reactions, etc.));
determining, based upon the request, a set of content items (the human can review the documentation and mentally decide upon a content items that will be covered in the podcast and can write a script using pen and paper);
generating a summary of the set of content items based upon the podcast customizing feature (a human narrows down the content such as a podcast script based upon e.g., audience interests, time constraints, etc.);
generating the podcast to comprise an auditory representation of the summary (a human podcaster can read out the narrowed down script with potential improvisation); and
providing the podcast to the client device (human speaks the script while a recording device on a client device is on- note that the BRI of this step relates to human performance where the device is passive and not performing any processing; note also that claim 11 relates to an article that can be considered and read out by a human podcaster to generate a podcast while claim 16 relates to a requested summary podcast based upon a second podcast where a human podcaster can listen to a second podcast, remember the contents, and then summarize that podcast to generate the first podcast).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Outside of the identified abstract idea, the claimed invention only includes computer components (e.g., a processor, memory, non-transitory machine-readable medium, and a dynamic user interface used for data gathering) which amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an otherwise abstract idea using generic computer components and interfaces. The claimed invention does not improve the use of a computer as a tool, it only relies upon the computer for its known purpose of data gathering and executing a program to carry out an otherwise abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The above identified additional generic computer components are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that are well-known, routine, and conventional as is evidenced by Bancorp Services v. Sun Life (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014). In regards to the use of a generic computer interface that receives and responds to user data dynamically or arranges data dynamically on a GUI failing to amount to an inventive concept, see Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Accordingly, independent 11 and 16 are directed towards patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The remaining dependent claims fail to add patent eligible subject matter to their respective parent claims;
Claim 12 regards a generic computer interface for providing the customization data.
Claims 14 and 18 narrow the recited content and customization features that can be considered by a human when reading content and generating a summary script and/or relate to a generic computer interface for reception of such features.
Claim 15 and 19 regard the use of a generic language model recited at a high level for generating the summary that is otherwise performed by a human. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to 8 perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. In the instant claim, the use of a language model only presents the idea of a solution (i.e., generating a summary) while failing to describe how the process for how the language model is used to achieve the solution. Moreover, use of a language model for summarization is well-known per the teachings of Aggarwal, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2020/0380403 A1, Paragraph 0003), Coursey (U.S. Patent: 11,645,479, Col. 6, Line 59- Col. 7, Line 4), and Karadimitriou, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2023/0315955 A1, Paragraph 0042).
Claim 17 regards a person listening to a second podcast and transcribing the content using pen and paper.
Claim 20 regards generic computer automation of manual speech production.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gardner, et al. (U.S. Patent: 12,008,332).
With respect to Claim 11, Gardner discloses:
A computing device comprising: a processor; and memory comprising processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations (method implementation as a system having a processor and memory storing program instructions, Col. 66, Lines 9-42), the operations comprising:
receiving, via a podcast customization interface comprising a first dynamic interface for submitting an indication of a podcast customizing feature ("interactive interfaces allow users to dynamically control and customize the summarization on demand," Col. 19, Lines 61-64; see also interfaces allowing for dynamic customization in Col. 20, Lines 29-33 and the discussion of levels of abstraction in the interface dynamically determined in Col. 24, Lines 39-50; further see Col. 28, Lines 39-44), a request to provide a podcast to a client device, wherein the request is indicative of: an article; and the podcast customizing feature (user selection/navigation of content to be provided to a content device from a networked system/server, Col. 5, Lines 49-54, where requests include "submitted" user customization features/preferences (e.g., compression percentage), Col. 8, Lines 52-62, Col. 16, Lines 17-40, Col. 24, Lines 27-35 and Col. 34, Lines 55-67; see also client devices running applications for content access, Fig. 1, Elements 110 and 102; note that content includes audio content such as podcasts, Col. 12, Lines 24-30; “news articles,” Col. 12, Line 57- Col. 13, Line 3);
generating a summary of the article based upon the podcast customizing feature (generating a summary based upon the abstraction parameters/preferences, Col. 13, Lines 10-18; Col. 14, Lines 37-42; Col. 18, Lines 25-39; Col. 26, Lines 16-17 and 55-60; see also Col. 24, Lines 34-35- "User preferences may directly inform desired summarization behavior");
generating the podcast to comprise an auditory representation of the summary (Col. 12, Lines 40-51- "system may generate multimedia summaries optimized for different modalities, such as spoken audio summaries;" Col. 11, Line 27- "text-to-speech converted summaries;" See also Col. 48, Lines 41-44 and 53-54; note that content includes audio content such as podcasts, Col. 12, Lines 24-30); and
providing the podcast to the client device (customized summary is returned to the user, Col. 26, Lines 55-60; client device access of content at Col 4, Line 58- Col. 5, Line 12).
Claim 12 recites subject matter similar to Claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale with respect to only the teachings of Gardner.
Claims 14-15 contain subject matter respectively similar to Claims 5-6, and thus, are rejected under similar rationale with respect to only the teachings of Gardner.
Claim 16 recites an alternate embodiment for practicing the functionality of claim 11 as processor-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. It should be noted that the language of claim 16 differs slightly from claim 11 in that the requested first podcast is the summary of the second podcast. Note that Gardner teaches that a requested (via a user interface) different/second content item (i.e., the claimed first podcast) includes a subset "representing the first content item" (i.e., the claimed second podcast) omitting or simplifying certain elements (Col. 13, Lines 9-18; Col. 13, Line 43- Col. 14, Line 11; Col. 13, Lines 27-36). Gardner also teaches method implementation as a computer program stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium (Col. 66, Lines 9-42).
With respect to Claim 17, Gardner further discloses:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, the operations comprising: converting audio of the second podcast to a transcript, wherein generating the summary of the second podcast is performed using the transcript (Col. 12, Lines 24-30- "automated speech recognition may first be used to transcribe the audio to text. The resulting text transcript may then [be] summarized using the system's text summarization capabilities").
Claim 18 contains subject matter similar to Claim 5 (noting the slight difference in wording pointed out in the parent claim 16 rejection), and thus, is rejected under similar rationale with respect to only the teachings of Gardner.
Claim 19 recites subject matter similar to Claim 6, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale with respect to only the teachings of Gardner.
Claim 20 contains subject matter similar to Claim 8 (noting the slight difference in wording pointed out in the parent claim 16 rejection), and thus, is rejected under similar rationale with respect to only the teachings of Gardner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 1-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner, et al. (U.S. Patent: 12,008,332) in view of Basu, et al. (U.S. PG Publication: 2008/0300872 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Gardner discloses:
A method, comprising:
receiving, via the podcast customization interface ("user interfaces to control the depth of summarization" for audio podcast generation, Col. 8, Lines 52-63; Col. 12, Lines 24-46,Col. 13, Lines 9-18; Col. 19, Lines 32-64), a request to provide a podcast to a client device, wherein the request is indicative of one or more podcast customizing features comprising the first podcast customizing feature (user selection/navigation of content to be provided to a content device from a networked system/server, Col. 5, Lines 49-54, where requests include "submitted" user customization features/preferences submitted through the UI (e.g., compression percentage), Col. 8, Lines 52-63, Col. 16, Lines 17-40, Col. 24, Lines 27-35 and Col. 34, Lines 55-67; see also client devices running applications for content access, Fig. 1, Elements 110 and 102; note that content includes audio content such as podcasts, Col. 12, Lines 24-30);
determining, based upon the request, a set of content items (identifying a first set of content items based upon, e.g., user navigation, Col. 12, Line 57- Col. 13, Line 3 and Col. 5, Lines 49-54);
generating a summary of the set of content items based upon at least one of the podcast customizing features comprising the first podcast customizing features (generating a summary based upon the user abstraction parameters/preferences, Col. 13, Lines 10-18; Col. 14, Lines 37-42; Col. 18, Lines 25-39; Col. 26, Lines 16-17 and 55-60; see also Col. 24, Lines 34-35- "User preferences may directly inform desired summarization behavior");
generating the podcast to comprise an auditory representation of the summary (Col. 12, Lines 40-51- "system may generate multimedia summaries optimized for different modalities, such as spoken audio summaries;" Col. 11, Line 27- "text-to-speech converted summaries;" See also Col. 48, Lines 41-44 and 53-54; note that content includes audio content such as podcasts, Col. 12, Lines 24-30); and
providing the podcast to the client device (customized summary is returned to the user, Col. 26, Lines 55-60; client device access of content at Col 4, Line 58- Col. 5, Line 12).
Although Gardner teaches the generation of an audio podcast customization interface for inputting user levels of abstraction and preferences that inform summarization behavior in generated “text-to-speech converted summaries,” Gardner does not teach “generating a podcast customization interface associated with a first content item, wherein the generating comprises generating a first interface, for submitting an indication of a first podcast customizing feature, based upon an analysis of the first content item.” Basu, however, teaches a browsing interface for customized audio content playback via summarization that dynamically generates adjustable portions of content by analyzing the input content (e.g., with speech recognition along with keyword extraction) (Paragraphs 0029, 0032, 0038-0039, 0045, and 0047).
Gardner and Basu are analogous art because they are from a similar field of endeavor in automated audio content summarization generation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include dynamically generated portions of a user interface based upon keywords extracted from content as taught by Basu in the podcast customization interface for entering user abstraction levels and preferences as taught by Gardner to provide a predictable result of allowing a user to listen to specific portions of content associated with a keyword of interest present in the content (Basu, Paragraph 0059).
With respect to Claim 2, Gardner further discloses:
The method of claim 1, comprising: providing, for display on the client device, a content interface providing the first content item and the podcast customization interface (user interface for content navigation and customization parameter selection, Col. 5, Lines 49-54; Col. 8, Lines 52-63; Col. 13, Lines 9-18; and Col. 19, Lines 32-44), wherein: the set of content items comprise the first content item (the first content item contains "multiple sub-content items," Col. 12, Line 57- Col. 13, Line 3).
With respect to Claim 3, Gardner further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the first content item comprises a first article (“news articles,” Col. 12, Line 57- Col. 13, Line 3).
With respect to Claim 4, Basu further discloses:
The method of claim 2, wherein: the analysis of the first content item determines that one or more entities (e.g., a lion) associated with the first podcast customizing feature are referred to in the first content item (keyword-based customization wherein analysis determines a plurality of keywords present in the first content item, Paragraphs 0027, 0029, 0032, 0038-0039, 0045, 0047, and 0056).
With respect to Claim 5, Gardner further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more podcast customizing features comprise a target length of the podcast (user settings for controlling the length of content/summary length, Col. 21, Lines 52-26; Col. 22, Lines 27-31; Col. 24, Lines 28-30 and 55-59; note that content includes audio content such as podcasts, Col. 12, Lines 24-30).
With respect to Claim 6, Gardner further discloses:
The method of claim 5, comprising: determining a target summary length based upon the target length (user preferences "guide" customization/summarization including degrees of abstraction and summary length, Col. 21, Lines 52-26; Col. 22, Lines 27-31; Col. 24, Lines 28-30 and 55-59); and submitting an indication of the target summary length to a language model, wherein generating the summary is performed using the language model based upon the target summary length (abstraction targets are submitted to a large language model (LLM) to generate the summary that hits such targets with "desired...length," Col. 13, Lines 19-61; Col. 17, Lines 7-12; Fig. 2, Element 230).
With respect to Claim 7, Gardner further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more podcast customizing features comprise an entity of interest associated with the podcast (keyword of interest used to retrieve audio content, Col. 49-54); determining the set of content items comprises: analyzing a database of content items to identify the first content item comprising first information associated with the entity of interest (database of content is retried including audio information content according to matching attributes stored as metadata, Col. 49-54); and including the first content item in the set of content items (identifying the first content item, Col. 12, Line 57- Col. 13, Line); and generating the summary of the set of content items comprises including, in the summary, a set of text indicative of at least some of the first information associated with the entity of interest (the summary includes a subset "representing the first content item" omitting or simplifying certain elements thereby including at least some of the audio information that was retrieved pertaining to the keyword/entity of interest wherein the output may include text, Col. 13, Lines 9-18; Col. 13, Line 43- Col. 14, Line 11; Col. 13, Lines 27-36 discussing summarization focusing on content themes).
With respect to Claim 8, Gardner further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein: generating the podcast comprises converting the summary to the auditory representation of the summary using a text-to-speech converter (Col. 12, Lines 40-51- "system may generate multimedia summaries optimized for different modalities, such as spoken audio summaries;" Col. 11, Line 27- "text-to-speech converted summaries").
With respect to Claim 9, Gardner further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more podcast customizing features comprise a level of detail of the podcast (level of detail/abstraction that can include lessening or expanding content, Col. 13, Lines 9-18; Col. 17, Lines 28-49; Col. 22, Lines 1-12; note that content includes audio content such as podcasts, Col. 12, Lines 24-30).
With respect to Claim 10, Gardner further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more podcast customizing features comprise an audience competency level associated with the podcast (content vocabulary according to “expertise levels,” Col. 14, Lines 12-23; Col. 16, Lines 31-33; Col. 24, Lines 30-31; Col. 28, Lines 24-27; Col. 45, Lines 15-20).
With respect to Claim 13, Gardner fails to teach, however, Basu discloses that the dynamic interface is generated based upon an analysis of a first content item for the reasons set forth in the claim 1 rejection. Further, Gardner and Basu are analogous art and combined for the reasons noted with respect to Claim 1.
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 JAMES S WOZNIAK whose telephone number is (571)272-7632. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3, off alternate Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may 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, Andrew Flanders can be reached at (571)272-7516. 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.
JAMES S. WOZNIAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2655
/JAMES S WOZNIAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655