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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 6, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the prior art cited fails to teach the claims as amended. Applicants’ arguments are persuasive, but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the 101, the claims are non-statutory. Applicants argue that the human mind is not equipped to perform sending to a computerized audio pattern recognition application an instruction to identify a reading level and causing an output of an indication of a recommended content. These activities are properly characterized as mental processes, methods of organizing human activity (personalization and tailoring of communications), and/or abstract data processing (classification and selection), which are identified by the courts as abstract ideas. The mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on a generic “computing device” or to use conventional machine learning (computerized audio pattern recognition application) is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claim does not supply an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed elements are routine, conventional data-processing activities implemented on generic computing hardware.
As explained by Applicants, according to Step 1, it includes determining whether the claims fall within a statutory category. The claims include a system, method and a sensor, therefore the claims fall within a statutory category. Step 2A Prong one, includes evaluating whether the claims recite a judicial exception. The claims recite a judicial exception, therefore an evaluation is done to determine if the claims fit into one of the categories. As explained below, the claims fit into the mental processing concept. Prong 2B is used to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. As explained below the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to
integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements
amount 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. The claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, Applicants explain that the claims recite specific improvements
to the technical field of efficiently using computer resources. The claims only receive, detect and activating data and does not meaningfully apply the gathered information to some useful process in a particular technological environment or employ a particular machine. Even if there are aspects of the invention being tied to a particular technology, merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract.
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 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-11, 13, 15-17, 19-20, 22, 24-26, 28 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of language-based content recommendations using closed captions, as explained in detail below.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “various devices” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from being mental processes, methods of organizing human activity, and/or abstract data processing. For example, the language, receiving a closed caption stream of an audio-video (A/V) content item being output by a user device (can be done by a user transcribing data), determining a content type associated with A/V content item (can be done by a user making a determination), detecting, in the received closed caption stream, an audio indicator associated with an audio portion of the A/V content item (can be done by a user detecting particular data), based on the detecting of the audio indicator and based on the determined content type, using a computerized audio pattern recognition application to identify a reading level of the audio portion of the A/V content item (based on the data received, analyzing the data and identify a reading level and the claim limitation incorporates a generic computer processor) and causing, based on the identified reading level, output of an identification of a recommended content having a reading level corresponding to the reading level of the audio portion of the A/V content item (can be done by a user outputting data regarding the reading level).
The present claim language under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mental processing, organizing human activity, and/or abstract data processing and recites generic computer components, which all falls within the grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements 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. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims recite similar language such as recording content, receiving information, sending audio, generating text making determinations and recommending data, which is all non-statutory.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 10-11, 15-17, 19-20, 24-26, 28 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneiderman et al. (PGPUB 2014/0331246), hereinafter referenced as Schneiderman in view of Bhattacharjee et al. (PGPUB 2018/0302687), hereinafter referenced as Bhattacharjee and in further view of Chica et al. (PGPUB 2013/0060763), hereinafter referenced as Chica.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, Schneiderman discloses a method, medium and system, hereinafter referenced as a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a closed caption stream (closed caption) of an audio-video (A/V) content item being output by a user device (p. 0014, 0027); and
detecting, in the received closed caption stream, an audio indicator associated with an audio portion of the A/V content item (music recognition; p. 0014, 0027), but does not specifically teach determining a content type associated with the A/V content item, based on detecting of the audio indicator and based on the determined content type using a computerized audio pattern recognition application to identify a reading level of the audio portion of the A/V content item and causing, based on the identified reading level, output of an identification of a recommended content having a reading level corresponding to the reading level the audio portion of the A/V content item.
Bhattacharjee discloses a method comprising:
determining a content type associated with the A/V content item (video closed captioning program 111 stores the title, genre, and reading level of the book in database 112. In a further embodiment, where client computing device 120 is desktop computer which contains a word processing software, video closed captioning program 111 learns a pattern based on a writing activity of the user. For example, if the user is a college student who writes several term papers every month, then video closed captioning program 111 stores the style, language, diction, tone, and voice of the user in database 112.; p. 0022); and
based on the detecting of the audio indicator and based on the determined content type, using pattern recognition to identify a reading level; (video closed captioning program 111 stores the title, genre, and reading level of the book in database 112. In a further embodiment, where client computing device 120 is desktop computer which contains a word processing software, video closed captioning program 111 learns a pattern based on a writing activity of the user. For example, if the user is a college student who writes several term papers every month, then video closed captioning program 111 stores the style, language, diction, tone, and voice of the user in database 112.; p. 0022, p. 0012), to provide techniques of predictive analysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to provide a user-friendly experience.
Chica discloses a method comprising:
using a computerized audio pattern recognition application (p. 0033) and identify a reading level of an audio portion of the A/V content item (reading level prediction; p. 0012-0014, 0033-0054); and
causing, based on the reading level, output of an identification of a recommended content having a reading level corresponding to the reading level of the A/V content item (providing an output that is personalized for a reading difficulty level; p. 0017, 0023 0048), to assist with easier reading.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to personalize users’ experience.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 20, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Chica discloses a method comprising causing recording audio of the A/V content item being output based on the reading level of the audio portion of the A/V content item (providing an output that is personalized for a reading difficulty level; p. 0017, 0023 0048).
Regarding claims 6, 15 and 24, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Chica discloses a method comprising recording of audio of the A/V content item being output and sending the recorded audio to the computerized audio pattern recognition application (pattern recognition; p. 0033).
Regarding claims 7, 16 and 25, Schneiderman discloses a method further comprising:
generating, based the detecting the audio indicator, additional text associated with the A/V content item (text; p. 0014-0016, 0027-0029).
Regarding claims 8, 17 and 26, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Chica discloses a method further comprising causing output, by the user device, of an advertisement based on the reading level of the audio portion of the A/V content item (advertisement; p. 0030).
Regarding claim 28, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Chica discloses sending, to the computerized audio pattern recognition application, an audio stream of the A/V content item (providing an output from a recognized pattern that is personalized for a reading difficulty level; p. 0017, 0023 0048).
Regarding claim 32, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above. In addition, Chica discloses wherein the determining the content type comprises determining that the A/V content item is a requested content item (p. 0067-0059).
Claim(s) 4, 13 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneiderman in view of Bhattacharjee and Chica and in further view of Homyack (PGPUB 2015/0208139), hereinafter referenced as Homyack.
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 22, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reasons as set forth above, however, Schneiderman in view of Bhattacharjee and Chica fails to teach a method wherein the audio indicator comprises a speaker change indicator.
Homyack discloses a method wherein the audio indicator comprises speaker change indicator (p. 0037), to allow a user to data and identify speakers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to provide real-time metatagging of audio, video and captioned data.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneiderman in view of Bhattacharjee and Chica and in further view Hollinger (USPN 9,749,700).
Regarding claim 30, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reason as set forth above, however, the prior art cited fails to teach the receiving the closed caption stream comprises receiving, based on one or more commands of a plurality of user commands, the closed caption stream; and
the causing output comprises causing, further based on the plurality of user commands, the output of the identification of a recommended content.
Hollinger discloses a method comprising:
receiving the closed caption stream comprises receiving, based on one or more commands of a plurality of user commands, the closed caption stream (command to turn on closed; column 8, lines 34-54); and
the causing output comprises causing, further based on the plurality of user commands, the output of the identification of a recommended content (recommending content; column 4, lines 48-67), for customizing a user’s experience.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to assist a user in determining what is being said and providing a user-friendly experience.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneiderman in view of Bhattacharjee and Chica and in further view of Huchital et al. (PGPUB 2008/0276266), hereinafter referenced as Huchital.
Regarding claim 31, it is interpreted and rejected for similar reason as set forth above, however, the prior art cited fails to teach wherein the determining the content type comprises determining that the A/V content item is not an advertisement.
Huchital discloses a method wherein the determining the content type comprises determining that the A/V content item is not an advertisement (p. 0033), to provide content requested and not unwanted information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as described above, to determine relevant targeting criteria.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This information has been detailed in the PTO 892 attached (Notice of References Cited).
Boyer et al. (PGPUB 2018/0018576) teaches a text classifier trainer that recognizes patterns.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAKIEDA R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30a-2:30p.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached on 571.272.5551. 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.
/JAKIEDA R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights