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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 9/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has cancelled claim 7 and integrated the limitations of cancelled claim 7 into independent claim 1. Applicant argues that categories and subcategories are not the same as the “tree structure” of decisions and possible consequences in the instant application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims fail to define that a tree structure is based on decisions and consequences. 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.
A tree structure as defined in the computer science realm, is a non-linear, hierarchical data structure made of connected elements called nodes. Each tree has a single root node at the top, which has no parent, and a collection of branches connecting the nodes. Unlike linear structures like lists, a tree organizes data hierarchically, where each node can have one or more children but is linked to only one parent. As taught by McDevitt in Paragraph 0020, all videos relating to baseballs, football, cleats, golf clubs (the branches of the tree) are associated with a “sports” metadata tag (the single root node at the top). The claims do not proffer any further description of the tree structure and how the tree structure differs from the teachings of McDevitt. Applicant only states they “are not the same” based on decisions and possible consequences (which are not claimed). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., decisions and possible consequences) 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).
Applicant also argues that McDevitt does not teach “synthesizing a next short-from video”. Applicant notes that a playlist is altered, but this is not representative of a synthesis. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes synthesis is the process of combining different things or ideas to create a new, complex whole. Paragraph 0011 of McDevitt teaches using AI to alter a playlist, therefore using items in a playlist to form a new/altered playlist, which under a broadest reasonable interpretation, represents a synthesis. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the teaches in the specification in Paragraphs 0027-0029) 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).
Therefore, the rejection stands and has been updated below.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 10-12 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDevitt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0101611) in view of Gibbon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0041805).
Referring to claim 1, McDevitt discloses accessing a graph structure associated with a plurality of videos, wherein the plurality of videos is selected from a library of videos (see Paragraphs 0017-0028 for the multiple types of data structures stored in a database that are used to create playlists), wherein the graph structure associated with the plurality of videos includes a tree structure (see Paragraphs 0018-0028 for the database that stores all of the data used to generate a playlist is in the form of a tree structure, for example, Paragraph 0020 shows that multiple subcategories (rings, necklaces, watches) under a category (jewelry) and further note the Examiner’s rebuttal above)..
McDevitt also discloses customizing the graph structure in a back-end environment (see Paragraph 0017 for the playlist creation system being customized with or without human intervention), wherein the customizing is based on one or more products for sale on a website (see Paragraph 0036 for using the Sales History 103 to determine a playlist and Paragraph 0022 for the Sales History 103 having a record of videos viewed with products for sale).
McDevitt also discloses rendering, to a user, at least one of the plurality of videos in accordance with the graph structure (see Paragraph 0040 for creating the initial playlist using the graph structure data identified above).
McDevitt also discloses collecting, from the user, video consumption behavior, as the plurality of videos are rendered (see Paragraph 0033).
McDevitt also discloses determining, based on the video consumption behavior, one or more next videos to be shown (see Paragraph 0400 for updating the playlist to a new playlist based on the captured video consumption behavior), wherein the determining is based on a sales goal (see the bottom of Paragraph 0019 and Paragraph 0022) and wherein the determining is accomplished by a machine learning model (see the bottom of Paragraph 0017).
While McDevitt teaches accessing video through a platform like YouTube (see Paragraph 043), McDevitt fails to teach that the plurality of videos are short-form videos.
Gibbon teaches that creating a playlist of short-form videos (see Paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the video playlist creation system, as taught by McDevitt, using the short-form videos, as taught by Gibbon, for the purpose of providing flexibility for content switching (see Paragraph 0037 of Gibbon).
Claim 2 corresponds to claim 1, wherein McDevitt discloses synthesizing a next video to be shown to the user, wherein the synthesizing is accomplished by the machine learning model (see Paragraph 0011). Gibbon teaches that the videos are short-form videos.
Claim 6 corresponds to claim 2, wherein McDevitt discloses that the next video is added to the graph structure (see Paragraphs 0030-0031). Gibbon teaches that the videos are short-form videos.
Claim 7 corresponds to claim 1, wherein the graph structure associated with the plurality of videos includes a tree structure (see Paragraphs 0018-0028 for the database that stores all of the data used to generate a playlist is in the form of a tree structure, for example, Paragraph 0020 shows that multiple subcategories (rings, necklaces, watches) under a category (jewelry)). Gibbon teaches that the videos are short-form videos.
Claim 10 corresponds to claim 1, wherein McDevitt discloses that the rendering, collecting and determining includes a plurality of users (see Paragraph 0011).
Claims 11-12 correspond to claims 1 and 11, respectively, wherein McDevitt discloses that the collecting further comprises identifying the user and that the determining is based on the identifying (see Paragraph 0041).
Referring to claim 20, McDevitt discloses re-customizing the graph structure, wherein the re-customizing is based on the video consumption behavior (see Paragraph 0017, 0025, 0033 and 0054).
Referring to claim 21, McDevitt discloses that the re-customizing is based on machine learning (see Paragraph 0017, 0025, 0033 and 0054).
Referring to claims 22-23, see the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 3-5, 9, 13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDevitt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0101611) in view of Gibbon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0041805) in further view of Ress et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0153990).
Referring to claim 3, McDevitt and Gibbon disclose all of the limitations of claim 2, but fail to teach adding an interactive overlay to the next short-form video to be shown which was synthesized, wherein the adding is accomplished by machine learning.
Ress discloses adding an interactive overlay to the next short-form video to be shown which was synthesized (see Paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention, to modify the short-form video playlist creation system, as taught by McDevitt and Gibbon, to include the overlay addition functionality, as taught by Ress, for the purpose of economically modify content, such as an advertisement, so that the content is personalized for particular subscriber (see Paragraph 0004 of Ress).
McDevitt, Gibbon and Ress fail to teach that the adding is accomplished by machine learning.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that adding an overlay to a video can be accomplished using machine learning techniques.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention, to modify the short-form video playlist creation system, as taught by McDevitt, Gibbon and Ress, to include the machine learning overlay addition functionality, as taught by the Examiner’s statement of Official Notice, for the purpose of providing a targeted overlay that the user is likely to engage with.
Claim 4 corresponds to claim 3, wherein Ress discloses adding a coupon with the interactive overlay (see Paragraphs 0030-0031).
Claim 5 corresponds to claim 4, McDevitt, Gibbon and Ress disclose all of the limitations of claim 4, but fail to teach that the coupon is based on a sales goal.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that a coupon can be determined based on sales goal.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention, to modify the short-form video playlist creation system, as taught by McDevitt, Gibbon and Ress, to include the targeted coupon functionality, as taught by the Examiner’s statement of Official Notice, for the purpose of providing a targeted coupon that the user is likely to engage with.
Referring to claim 9, McDevitt and Gibbon disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach that customizing includes adding an interactive overlay to one or more of the plurality of short-form videos that were selected from the library.
Ress discloses that customizing includes adding an interactive overlay to one or more of the plurality of short-form videos that were selected from the library
(see Paragraphs 0037, Figure 4 and Paragraphs 0039-0042).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention, to modify the short-form video playlist creation system, as taught by McDevitt and Gibbon, to include the overlay addition functionality, as taught by Ress, for the purpose of economically modify content, such as an advertisement, so that the content is personalized for particular subscriber (see Paragraph 0004 of Ress).
Referring to claim 13, McDevitt and Gibbon disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach enabling an ecommerce purchase, within an ecommerce environment, of the one or more products for sale.
Ress discloses enabling an ecommerce purchase, within an e-commerce environment, of the one or more products for sale (see Paragraphs 0019, 0022, 0050 and 0057).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention, to modify the short-form video playlist creation system, as taught by McDevitt and Gibbon, to include the ecommerce functionality, as taught by Ress, for the purpose of economically modify content, such as an advertisement, so that the content is personalized for particular subscriber (see Paragraph 0004 of Ress).
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 13, Ress discloses at least one of the plurality of short-form videos that was rendered includes highlighting the one or more products for sale to the user (see Figure 4 and Paragraph 0039).
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 17, Ress discloses representing the one or more products for sale in an on-screen product card (see Figure 4 and Paragraph 0039).
Referring to claim 19, McDevitt and Gibbon disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach that the graph structure is displayed in the back-end environment.
Ress discloses that a graph structure is displayed in the back-end environment (see Paragraphs 0030 and 0033).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention, to modify the short-form video playlist creation system, as taught by McDevitt and Gibbon, to include the graph structure display functionality, as taught by Ress, for the purpose of economically modify content, such as an advertisement, so that the content is personalized for particular subscriber (see Paragraph 0004 of Ress).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDevitt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0101611) in view of Gibbon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0041805) in further view of Jouhikainen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0372165).
Referring to claim 8, McDevitt and Gibbon teach all of the limitations in claim 1, but fail to teach checking to determine if the one or more products for sale is in stock.
Jouhikainen discloses checking to determine if the one or more products for sale is in stock (see Paragraphs 0033 and 0074).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention, to modify the short-form video playlist creation system, as taught by McDevitt and Gibbon, to include the stock checking functionality, as taught by Jouhikainen, for the purpose of providing product types a viewer is interested in (see Paragraph 0070 of Jouhikainen).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDevitt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0101611) in view of Gibbon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0041805) in further view of Ress et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0153990) in further view of Jouhikainen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0372165).
Referring to claim 14, McDevitt, Gibbon and Ress disclose all of the limitations of claim 13, but fails to teach enabling the ecommerce purchase to include a virtual purchase cart.
Jouhikainen discloses enabling the ecommerce purchase to include a virtual purchase cart (see Figure 6A and Paragraph 0095).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention, to modify the short-form video playlist creation system, as taught by McDevitt, Gibbon and Ress, to include the virtual purchase cart functionality, as taught by Jouhikainen, for the purpose of providing product types a viewer is interested in (see Paragraph 0070 of Jouhikainen).
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 14, wherein Jouhikainen also discloses displaying, within the at least one of the plurality of videos that was rendered, the virtual purchase cart (see Figure 6A and Paragraph 0095). The Examiner notes that Gibbon has been applied to teach short-form videos.
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 14, wherein Jouhikainen also discloses that the virtual purchase cart covers a portion of the at least one of the plurality of videos that was rendered (see Figure 6A and Paragraph 0095). The Examiner notes that Gibbon has been applied to teach short-form videos.
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 JASON P SALCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7301. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am-10:00pm M-F (Flex Schedule).
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/Jason Salce/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Jason P Salce
Senior Examiner
Art Unit 2421
October 28, 2025