DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 27 July 2026 in regard to application no. 18/667,988. Claims 15-20 and 30 have been cancelled. Claims 1-14 and 21-29 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of inventive group I, claims 1-14 and 21-29, in the reply filed on 27 July 2026 is acknowledged.
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) 1-9 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0228880) in view of Pollock et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0345754).
In-line citations are to Iyer.
With regard to Claim 1:
Iyer teaches: A processing system for machine learning, [0024; “machine learning” can be used] comprising:
at least one memory having executable instructions stored thereon; and
one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions [0146; a “computer-readable medium” stores “instructions” to be “executed by a processor”] in order to cause the processing system to:
generate a representation of first streaming data; [0280; a “representation” of “one or more objects” of a video stream is created]
generate a response to the first streaming data [abstract; an advertisement is generated based on video streaming data] using a generative artificial intelligence model, [0036; generative AI techniques are used] the generated response to the first streaming data being based on previously received streaming data… [abstract]
Iyer does not explicitly teach a response is comprising one or more tokens identifying an action to perform in response to receipt of the first streaming data, or to take one or more first actions based on the response to the first streaming data, but it is known in the art. Pollock teaches a streaming system [title] which may use “live streams” for “product promotions”. [0017] A user may interact with an “icon”, which reads on a token, in response to the streamed content. [0018] Pollock and Iyer are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using streaming to provide advertisements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Pollock with that of Iyer in order to reach large audiences, as taught by Pollock; [0017] further, it is simply a combination of known parts with predictable results, simply performing Pollock’s step after those of Iyer. Each part works independently of the other, and each works in combination identically to how it works when not combined, with no new and unexpected result inherent or disclosed.
With regard to Claim 2:
The processing system of Claim 1, wherein the first streaming data comprises streaming video data and wherein the response to the first streaming data comprises a continue observation token. [Iyer as cited above; video is used]
Referring to a token as a “continue observation token” is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 3:
The processing system of Claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the processing system to, based on the response comprising the continue observation token:
generate a representation of second streaming data;
generate a response to the second streaming data using the generative artificial intelligence model, the generated response to the second streaming data being based on at least the first streaming data and the second streaming data; and
take one or more second actions based on the response to the second streaming data.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 2 as it consists entirely of a mere duplication of parts, simply repeating the identical process based on different data. This is of no patentable significance as no new and unexpected result is inherent or disclosed. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
With regard to Claim 4:
The processing system of Claim 3, wherein to take the one or more second actions based on the response to the second streaming data, the one or more processors are configured to cause the processing system to output the response in a modality different from a modality associated with the first streaming data and the second streaming data. [0024; e.g. it may be “images” generated from “text” or “character animations”]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 3, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter, disclosing at most the content of information which is displayed or transmitted but which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 5:
The processing system of Claim 1, wherein the response to the first streaming data comprises an output response token indicating that the response is to be output to a user of a computing system from which the first streaming data was received.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter, disclosing at most the content of information which is displayed or transmitted but which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 6:
The processing system of Claim 1, wherein the response to the first streaming data comprises a response related to a previously generated response generated by the generative artificial intelligence model based on the previously received streaming data.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter, disclosing at most the content of information which is displayed or transmitted but which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 7:
The processing system of Claim 1, wherein to generate the representation of the first streaming data, the one or more processors are configured to cause the processing system to generate one or more input tokens representing the first streaming data. [Pollock, as cited above in regard to claim 1]
With regard to Claim 8:
The processing system of Claim 1, wherein the generative artificial intelligence model comprises a model trained to generate at least one of textual responses or audio responses to streaming video inputs. [0077; the advertisement may include “text, speech, sounds, music”]
With regard to Claim 9:
The processing system of Claim 1, wherein the generative artificial intelligence model comprises a model trained to generate the response asynchronously and in parallel with capturing at least second streaming data. [0167; operations may take place in parallel]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1. As claim 1 does not include any provision of training of a model, details of any such training are outside the scope of the claimed invention and so are considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 21:
Iyer teaches: A processor-implemented method for machine learning, [0146; a “computer-readable medium” stores “instructions” to be “executed by a processor”; 0024; machine learning is used] comprising:
generating a representation of first streaming data; [0280; a “representation” of “one or more objects” of a video stream is created]
generating a response to the first streaming data [abstract; an advertisement is generated based on video streaming data] using a generative artificial intelligence model, [0036; generative AI techniques are used] the generated response to the first streaming data being based on previously received streaming data… [abstract]
Iyer does not explicitly teach a response is comprising one or more tokens identifying an action to perform in response to receipt of the first streaming data, or taking one or more first actions based on the response to the first streaming data, but it is known in the art. Pollock teaches a streaming system [title] which may use “live streams” for “product promotions”. [0017] A user may interact with an “icon”, which reads on a token, in response to the streamed content. [0018] Pollock and Iyer are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using streaming to provide advertisements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Pollock with that of Iyer in order to reach large audiences, as taught by Pollock; [0017] further, it is simply a combination of known parts with predictable results, simply performing Pollock’s step after those of Iyer. Each part works independently of the other, and each works in combination identically to how it works when not combined, with no new and unexpected result inherent or disclosed.
With regard to Claim 22:
The method of Claim 21, wherein the first streaming data comprises streaming video data and wherein the response to the first streaming data comprises a continue observation token. [Iyer as cited above; video is used]
Referring to a token as a “continue observation token” is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 23:
The method of Claim 22, further comprising, based on the response comprising the continue observation token:
generating a representation of second streaming data;
generating a response to the second streaming data using the generative artificial intelligence model, the generated response to the second streaming data being based on at least the first streaming data and the second streaming data; and
taking one or more second actions based on the response to the second streaming data.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 22 as it consists entirely of a mere duplication of parts, simply repeating the identical process based on different data. This is of no patentable significance as no new and unexpected result is inherent or disclosed. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
With regard to Claim 24:
The method of Claim 21, wherein the generative artificial intelligence model comprises a model trained to generate the response asynchronously and in parallel with capturing at least second streaming data. [0024; e.g. it may be “images” generated from “text” or “character animations”]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 21, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter, disclosing at most the content of information which is displayed or transmitted but which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 10 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. in view of Pollock et al. further in view of Ikenoue et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0063236).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 10:
The processing system of Claim 1, wherein:
the first streaming data comprises video depicting subject motion, and
the response to the first streaming data comprises an observation of the depicted subject motion relative to a target subject motion.
With regard to Claim 25:
The method of Claim 21, wherein: the first streaming data comprises video depicting subject motion, and the response to the first streaming data comprises an observation of the depicted subject motion relative to a target subject motion.
Iyer and Pollock teach the system of claim 1 and method of claim 21, but do not explicitly teach this interpretation of data, and though it is of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Ikenoue teaches an object tracking system [title] that tracks objects in a “video stream” to “observe likelihoods” of “target candidates with respect to” a “target object” within an image frame. [0012] Ikenoue and Iyer are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing information within video streams.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ikenoue with that of Iyer and Pollack in order to improve accuracy, as taught by Ikenoue; [0004] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply interpreting data in the manner of Ikenoue rather than that of Iyer; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
These claims are not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 21 as they consist entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed system. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. in view of Pollock et al. further in view of Geng et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0171819, filed 22 September 2023).
Claims 11 and 26 are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 11:
The processing system of Claim 1, wherein to generate the response to the first streaming data, the one or more processors are configured to cause the processing system to:
identify a state in a state machine corresponding to the first streaming data, the state comprising one of a plurality of states in the state machine describing a sequence of activity monitored by the generative artificial intelligence model; and
generate the response based on the identified state.
With regard to Claim 26:
The method of Claim 21, wherein generating the response to the first streaming data comprises:
identifying a state in a state machine corresponding to the first streaming data, the state comprising one of a plurality of states in the state machine describing a sequence of activity monitored by the generative artificial intelligence model; and
generating the response based on the identified state.
Iyer and Pollock teach the system of claim 1 and method of claim 21, including the use of generative AI and the use of streaming as cited above, but do not explicitly teach this use of sequences, but it is known in the art. Geng teaches a display control system [title] that displays information according to a “target sequence” of data from “video streams” and prioritizes an “earlier” stream upon determining that two of the “video streams are identical”. [0012] Geng and Iyer are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing data in video streams.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Geng with that of Iyer and Pollock in order to improve display flexibility, as taught by Geng; [0003] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply generating information in the manner of Geng rather than, or in addition to, that of Iyer; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 12:
The processing system of Claim 11, wherein to generate the response based on the identified state, the one or more processors are configured to cause the processing system to generate the response based on a comparison of the identified state to a target state for the sequence of activity monitored by the generative artificial intelligence model. [Geng, 0012 as cited above in regard to claim 11]
With regard to Claim 13:
The processing system of Claim 11, wherein to generate the response based on the identified state, the one or more processors are configured to cause the processing system to generate the response based on a determination that the identified state is identical to a previous state identified by the generative artificial intelligence model for a previous streaming input. [Geng, 0012 as cited above in regard to claim 11]
With regard to Claim 27:
The method of Claim 26, wherein generating the response based on the identified state comprises generating the response based on a comparison of the identified state to a target state for the sequence of activity monitored by the generative artificial intelligence model. [Geng, 0012 as cited above in regard to claim 26]
With regard to Claim 28:
The method of Claim 26, generating the response based on the identified state comprises generating the response based on a determination that the identified state is identical to a previous state identified by the generative artificial intelligence model for a previous streaming input. [Geng, 0012 as cited above in regard to claim 26]
Claim(s) 14 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. in view of Pollock et al. further in view of Geng et al. further in view of Naribole et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0289499).
With regard to Claim 14:
The processing system of Claim 13, wherein:
the identified state comprises a target state for the sequence of activity, and
to generate the response, the one or more processors are configured to cause the processing system to generate affirmative feedback acknowledging that the sequence of activity has been correctly performed.
With regard to Claim 29:
The method of Claim 28, wherein:
the identified state comprises a target state for the sequence of activity, and
generating the response comprises generating affirmative feedback acknowledging that the sequence of activity has been correctly performed.
Iyer, Pollock and Geng teach the system of claim 13 and method of claim 28, including comparing a state to a target, but do not explicitly teach providing feedback, but it is known in the art. Naribole teaches a transmission system [title] that produces an advertisement which is responded to. [0006] It uses “broadcast streams” and provides a confirmation that a “sequence is correct”. [0056] Naribole and Iyer are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing streaming data and providing advertisements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Naribole with that of Iyer, Pollock and Geng in order to improve coordination of data, as taught by Naribole; [0052] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing the output of Naribole in place of, or in addition to, that of Iyer; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights