DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 7/24/2026.
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 23 and 24 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-20, 23, and 24 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 24 recites “The method of claim 11” however claim 11 is a system claim. The examiner finds this to be a typo as the applicant’s intent is clear. The examiner recommends changing “The method of claim 11” to “The system of claim 11.” Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-11, 13-20, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 3-10, and 23 and 11, 13-20, and 24 are directed to a method and system respectively. Thus, on their face they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A prong 1:
Claims 1 and 11 recite virtually identical limitations. Claim 1 will be used as representative. Each claim’s additional elements will be addressed individually.
The following limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely descriptive of abstract concepts:
Claims 1 and 11:
providing a media asset to the user;
receiving, from the user, a selection of a scene of the media asset during playback of the selected scene;
extracting metadata from the selected scene;
based at least in part on (a) an output of model trained to identify one or more products and (b) the metadata form the selected scene, determining a product shown in the selected scene;
automatically, during playback of the media asset:
determining that an asset of the product does not exist by querying a data store of assets;
based on determining that the asset of the product does not exist, transmitting, via a communication path, a first request to an asset content creator associated with the product shown in the selected scene;
receiving, via the communication path, the asset of the product shown in the selected scene from the asset content creator associated with the product;
determining that at least one additional asset is available for purchase, wherein the at least one additional asset is associated with a second scene and is related to the asset of the product;
receiving, from the user, a second request to purchase at least one of: the asset of the product and the at least one additional asset; and
generating, for display, an indication confirming purchase over the playable media asset.
The following dependent claim limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely further descriptive of abstract concepts:
Claims 3, 13:
wherein the product comprises any one of:
a brand name; or
a brand product.
Claims 4, 14:
wherein the product in the scene corresponds to an advertiser, the method further comprising:
notifying the advertiser that the product appears in the selected scene.
Claims 5, 15:
wherein the asset of the product is generated based on preferences of the advertiser;
Claims 6, 16:
further comprising:
identifying content preferences of a media profile associated with the user, wherein transmitting the first request is further based on determining that the content preferences of the media profile correspond to metadata of the asset
Claims 7, 17:
wherein the content preferences specify preferences for at least one of actors, content genre, content keywords, or content setting.
Claims 8, 18:
wherein determining that the content preferences of the media profile correspond to metadata of the asset comprises:
determining an asset suitability score based on the content preferences; and
in response to determining that the asset suitability score is above a threshold, matching the asset to the media profile associated with the user.
Claims 9, 19:
wherein the metadata of the asset comprises any one of:
an asset type;
a scene start time;
a scene end time;
ownership of the scene; and
a bidding price for the asset.
Claims 23, 24:
wherein determining that at least one additional asset is available for purchase, wherein the at least one additional asset is associated with a second scene and is related to the asset of the product; comprises: calculating an asset scene similarity score of the selected scene and the second scene based at least in part on the metadata of the selected scene.
The claims recite receiving a selection of a scene in a media presentation, analyzing the scene, and determining whether an asset exists for the scene. If an asset exists for the scene the user is provided an option to purchase it. If no asset exists for the scene, an asset is created and the user is provided an option to purchase it. Thus, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims embody certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, such activity is in the form of commercial interactions in the form of advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. This is essentially a form of targeted marketing by targeting a product that is likely to be of interest to a buyer. Further, the product is being sold which is clearly sales activity.
Step 2A prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claims recite the following additional elements: playable media asset (claim 1, 11); client device (claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 16, 18, 21, 22); playback of the selected scene, during playback of the playable media asset/ over the playable media asset (claims 1, 11); NFT/ additional NFT (claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24); database of NFTs (claim 1, 11); machine learning model (claims 1, 11); machine learning / machine learning algorithm (claims 8, 18); cinemagraph (claim 10, 20); memory storing instructions, communication paths, control circuitry coupled to the communication paths and the memory (claim 11);
The client device, sever with database, database of NFT’s, memory storing instructions, communication paths, and control circuitry coupled to the communication paths and memory are recited at a high level of generality and merely “apply it” (the abstract idea) using generic computing components (See spec [0024], [0025], [0037], [0060) The computing devices are used to send and receive data (receiving, providing, transmitting, notifying) and processes data (extracting, determining, generating, identifying, matching). Further, the database is merely used to store data. Additionally, the communication path is merely a network for sending and receiving data. Thus, the computing devices, communication paths, and database do not improve the computers themselves, data storage, data transmission or a technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The non-fungible token, including wherein the NFT is a cinemagraph, additional NFT, playable media asset, client playback of the selected scene/ during playback of the playable media asset/ over the playable media asset merely provides a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims do not seek to improve upon NFT’s or cinemagraphs but instead merely uses these mediums as the media content in which to practice the abstract concept. Thus, the use of NFT’s including wherein the NFT is a cinemagraph merely provides a general link to digital media as opposed to any other type of media. The fact that media is playable merely provides the type of media it is such as video as opposed to any other type of medium such as a static image. Nothing improves upon playable media technology or a technical field. Further, the occurrence of various functions during playback of the media merely provides the environment in which the actions are taken. Nothing in the claims provides any meaningful technique or technical details required to implement the processes during playback. They merely recite at a high level that the functions occur during playback of the media. Thus, the claims do not provide an improvement to technology or a technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The high-level recitation of machine learning to identify a product and to determine an advertiser preference score does not provide any algorithms or details regarding the use of machine learning but rather merely recites its usage at a high level of generality for a desired purpose. Therefore, nothing in the claims improves upon machine learning, machine learning technology, or the technical field. As such, the claims do not go beyond the “apply it” level of implementation (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly, as above with regard to practical application, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept as they merely provide generic computing components used as a tool to implement the abstract idea and provide a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use.
As a result, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-20, 23, and 24 are allowed over the prior art but remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
While each limitation can be found in the prior art, the combination of references required to teach each and every limitation in the context of the claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. As a result, such rejection has been withdrawn.
Kim, Taehyun et al (WO 2023/153568) is considered the closest prior art. It teaches users consuming media and being able to buy NFT’s associated with various items in the media. While watching a program the system analyzes the scenes for items that match. For example, a soccer player can be identified and an NFT of the player can then be displayed to the user while watching the media. The user has the option to then purchase the NFT. It does not expressly teach determining additional NFT’s associated with a second scene that is related to the NFT of the product or analyzing a scene using machine learning to identify one or more products and metadata form the scene. Houmou (WO 2022/238854) Houmou teaches allowing a brand owner to create a video which includes a product. The video including the product can be turned into an NFT. The NFT can then be sold to interested parties. Bowen at al (US 2022/0075845) teaches a searchable interface that can search for products and return NFTs associated with those products. Further, products included in images can be identified using machine learning. Kaladeh et al (US 2023/0045071) sending a request to identify NFTs meeting certain search criteria. If a matching NFT exists it is returned to the user. Further, Kaladeh teaches that each image returned in a search can have an NFT created for it on the fly and be sold to interested buyers. Nishar et al (US 2015/0375104) teaches a content suitability score determined using machine learning to determine whether content is relevant to a member based on profile attributes and historical interaction data. Peterson et al (US 2014/0007146) teaches providing additional content that is related to content that is being purchased and providing an indication or notification that the content was purchased. Lin-Hendel et al (US 2017/0046772) teaches viewers interested in given products can search for the product in one or multiple scenes in one or multiple movies. The results are shown to the users including links with the ability to purchase the items. Vijayan (US 2020/0005284) teaches movie studios being able to mint NFT’s for movies, characters, notable scenes, and notable objects. They are purchasable via an exchange and notifications can be sent to users in real time related to the media they are currently consuming to buy related NFT’s. Chen et al (US 12,067,779) teaches comparing scenes in movies. It determines similar media using genre, synopsis, and recommendation information then determines similar scenes from similar media. A similarity matrix scores the scenes and selects the most similar scene pairs.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has considered but does not find persuasive applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC 101. With regard to DDR holdings the examiner respectfully disagrees. In DDR the claims were directed to a webpage element that allowed a user to stay on the current webpage and be able to view content from other web pages. The present claims provide no such improvement or focus on the technical aspects of how to achieve the uninterrupted playback. At best the claims recite at a high level performing actions while media is playing. The claims provide none of “how” this is accomplished and instead recite its general use at a high level. Such results-based claiming does not go beyond the “apply it” level of implementation (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and merely provides a general link to a particular technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). If the claims had recited particular technical steps required to achieve the performance of the steps without interrupting playback then it might go beyond merely performing the acts in a particular environment or go beyond the apply it level. However, the claims recite no specific solution with regard to how these operations occur without interrupting playback. Instead, the claims almost entirely focus on the abstract idea including analyzing a scene, checking to see if an NFT exists, determining the NFT doesn’t exist, creating an NFT, determining additional NFT’s related to first NFT, and selling them to the user. The claims do little more than merely state that this happens without interrupting playback. As a result, such rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to 35 USC 103 are found persuasive. As a result such rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to DP are found persuasive. As a result such rejections have been withdrawn.
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 CHRISTOPHER STROUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9AM-5PM.
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, Waseem Ashraff can be reached at (571) 270-3948. 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.
CHRISTOPHER STROUD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621
/CHRISTOPHER STROUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights