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 .
Drawings
Figures 1, 13, and 19 are objected to because shown components are not clearly identified in the figures. Elements critical to the understanding of the invention should also be identified via written legend (See 37 CFR 1.84 (o)). Such a legend may, for example, be placed alongside the figures as presented, identifying elements by name and number (e.g. 30, Network).
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: APPARATUS, METHOD, AND PROGRAM FOR PREDICTING CONTENT TRENDS VIA FEATURE ANALYSIS.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 8 recites the term "each the predetermined period.” It is unclear if this is meant to indicate “each predetermined period,” “each of the predetermined periods,” or “the predetermined period,” thus rendering the claim indefinite.
For purposes of examination “each the predetermined period” will be read as “the predetermined period,” drawing proper antecedent basis from claim 1, line 4.
Claims 19 and 20 are similarly rendered indefinite due to use of the term “each the predetermined period.” Please review and amend the claims as necessary.
Claims 2-18 are rejected due to dependency from claim 1.
Claim 4, lines 2-4 recite the limitation “wherein the target content acquires the content that satisfies the condition indicating the popularity as the target content.” It is unclear how a first content is able to perform the step of acquiring a second content as itself.
For purposes of examination “wherein the target content acquires the content that satisfies the condition indicating the popularity as the target content” will be read as “wherein the target content is identified as satisfying the condition indicating popularity.”
Claims 5-6 are rejected due to dependency from claim 4.
Claim 8, lines 6-7 recite the limitation "the designated data sharing platform." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of examination “the designated data sharing platform” will be read as “a designated data sharing platform.”
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claimed invention is directed towards a (computer) program, which is not strictly defined by the claim or the specification as non-transitory computer readable medium.
Computer readable program code may be embodied in many ways, including transitory signals received at a device. It may even be embodied as paper or another suitable medium upon which the program is printed, as the program can be electronically captured, via, for instance, optical scanning of the paper or other medium, then compiled, interpreted, or otherwise processed in a suitable manner, if necessary, and then stored in a computer memory,” Therefore claim 20 is directed to non-statutory embodiments including transitory mediums/signals/software per se.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 2019/0102374.
Regarding claim 1, Tiwari discloses an information processing apparatus (The methods disclosed are implemented via computers (information processing apparatus).....¶[0019], lines 1-3) comprising a control unit (Shown in Fig. 1, CPU (110)) that
acquires a distribution of features (Groups of social media posts are processed to acquire a set of “n-grams” (keyword-based features) which are classified as part of a dataset (thus providing a distribution).....¶[0044], lines 1-3, ¶[0045], lines 1-2, ¶[0048], lines 1-3) of a target content (Content items, (e.g. social media posts).....¶[0040], lines 5-6) in a predetermined period (Particular time period.....¶[0040], lines 5-7), regarding target content (The time period is selected in regards to when the content was generated),
acquires a distribution of features (After processing the original set of posts, a prediction of how much each “n-gram” will be trending (i.e.: how they’ll be distributed in future social media posts.....¶[0050], lines 1-3) in a prediction period (Prediction of a future period.....¶[0050], lines 2-3) on a basis of the distribution of the features in the predetermined period (The predictions are made on the basis of the occurrence (trending, distribution) of n-grams from the particular past time period.....¶[0050], lines 4-6), and
compares a distribution of features in a current period with the distribution of the features in the prediction period (The change values of n-gram features over time are evaluated, comparing the distribution of each feature at the time the dataset was generated (the current period) to the distribution of each future in the future (the prediction period).....¶[0051], lines 4-8) to extract a section satisfying a predetermined condition (Change values above a threshold (predetermined condition) are identified (extracted).....¶[0051], lines 4-5) as a feature trend in the prediction period (The data is used to anticipate (predict) n-grams (features) that trend in the future (prediction period).....¶[0052], lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 9, Tiwari discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit performs control to display a screen (The CPU communicates with a display controller.....¶[0016], lines 5-7) indicating the feature trend (Predicted feature trends are indicated to the user via topic reports.....¶[0059], lines 1-3) in the prediction period on a display unit (A display unit provides graphical feedback to a user.....¶[0016], lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 13, Tiwari discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the screen includes a display indicating a numerical value of a section extracted as the feature trend (Shown in Fig. 6B, graphs (653) indicating the numerical values of extracted feature trends are included in displayed reports.....¶[0059], lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 14, Tiwari discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the control unit acquires a distribution of features in the prediction period for each feature of the target content (Predictions of distributions are made for each feature selected via processing target content…..¶[0050], lines 1-3), and calculates, for each feature, a distance between a distribution of features in the current period and a distribution of features in the prediction period (For each selected feature, a change value is calculated, reflective of the amount of change (distance) of distribution of features from the current period to the prediction period.....¶[0051], lines 3-5), and extracts the feature trend for each feature after excluding features whose distance is less than a threshold (Feature trends are identified (extracted) for features where the amount of change is above an identified threshold.....¶[0051], lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 15, Tiwari discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the screen displays each feature trend (Shown in Fig. 6B, reports for growing conversations (predicted feature trends) are listed in order of most likely to trend per the process identified in the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 14.....¶[0060], lines 1-3) in descending order of the distance (The metric used for prediction, calculated by the method of Tiwari is chxange value, previously identified as a distance. This can also be seen in Fig. 5, where pairs of trending topics are ordered in descending order by values (502, 504, 506, 508).....¶[0051], lines 3-8).
Regarding claim 18, Tiwari discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit performs control to extract the feature trend on a basis of a distribution obtained by combining a plurality of features (n-gram features may be sorted according to regions, a separate feature category, comprising a plurality.....¶[0041], lines 5-7, ¶[0051], lines 1-2) and display the extracted feature trend on a multi-dimensional grid (Shown in Fig. 6B, “Growing Conversations” (predicted feature trends) may be displayed as part of a report, with the trends themselves plotted as line charts on a cartesian plane (a type of multi-dimensional grid).....¶[0060], lines 1-3 )
Claim 19 is rejected under the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the functions recited are the same as that of claim 1.
Tiwari additionally discloses wherein the method is implemented via program (¶[0062], lines 8-10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 2, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari in view of McGilliard, US Patent No. 9,753,988.
Regarding claim 2, Tiwani discloses, as explained above, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the section satisfying the predetermined condition is a section in which a value is lower than a threshold in the distribution in the current period and the value is higher than the threshold in the distribution in the prediction period.
McGillard teaches an information processing method for predicting trending artists (analogous to the trending n-gram features of Tiwani), wherein a section (of artists) satisfying the predetermined condition is a section in which a value is lower than a threshold in the distribution in the current period (Artists that are already (in a current period) popular (not below a popularity threshold) are filtered out (as they do not satisfy the predetermined condition)…..Col. 9, line 66-67) and the value is higher than the threshold in the distribution in the prediction period (Artists that are determined to become popular (rise above the popularity threshold) in the future (prediction period) are selected as the section for display…..Col. 10, lines 39-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tiwani by McGillard to provide the benefit of avoiding mistaking already popular topics as potentially becoming popular (McGillard, Col. 9, lines 1-2). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the section satisfying the predetermined condition is a section in which a value is lower than a threshold in the distribution in the current period and the value is higher than the threshold in the distribution in the prediction period.
Regarding claim 16, Tiwani discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the control unit extracts an artist associated with music in which at least one of the extracted feature trends matches, instead disclosing extracting general pop culture trends such as trending television shows (Seen in Fig. 6B, Scooby Doo is identified as an extracted feature trend).
McGillard teaches a method of predicting a number of listeners (a feature) of target content in a future period based on analysis of current listeners in a current period (Generally explained in Col. 2, lines 23-30), analogous to the method of Tiwani, wherein a control unit (Methods are implemented by a processor (control unit)…..Col. 12, lines 17-21) extracts an artist associated with music (The method identifies (extracts) artists and songs predicted to become popular…..Col. 7, lines 15-18) in which at least one of the extracted feature trends matches (The identification is based on listener (feature) trends.....Col 7, lines 18-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tiwani by McGillard to provide the benefit of business methods for media providers that promote obscure artists that may become popular, earning revue for said providers and artists (McGillard, Col 3, lines 24-33). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the control unit extracts an artist associated with music in which at least one of the extracted feature trends matches
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Tiwani and McGillard, as explained above, teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 16.
Tiwani additionally teaches wherein the control unit performs control to display the extracted feature trend (Predicted feature trends are displayed to a user via topic reports.....¶[0059], lines 1-3), as well as the extracted topic, but fails to teach wherein the control unit performs control to display extracted artists and music.
McGillard additionally teaches displaying extracted artists and music (Shown in Fig. 4, a user interface displays artists and songs predicted to become popular at symbol (414)…..Col. 11, lines 48-51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Tiwani and McGillard further by McGillard to provide the benefit of business methods for media providers that promote obscure artists that may become popular, earning revue for said providers and artists (McGillard, Col 3, lines 24-33). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the control unit performs control to display extracted artists and music.
Claims 3-8, and 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari in view of “Music Popularity: Metrics, Characteristics, and Audio-based Prediction” [online]. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 2018 (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 3, Tiwani discloses, as explained above, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the target content is content that satisfies a condition indicating popularity.
Lee teaches a method of predicting trending popular music features based on evaluating target content, wherein the target content (Content used for training prediction models…..Pg. 7, Heading D, 1, lines 6-8) is content that satisfies a condition indicating popularity (Songs are chosen based on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, which ranks music based on popularity.....Pg. 7, heading D, 1, lines 6-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tiwani by Lee to provide the benefit of predicting popularity of future content based on analysis of multiple aspects of popularity over time (Lee, Pg. 2, Col. 1, subheading “1)”, lines 3-8). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the target content is content that satisfies a condition indicating popularity.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood under the pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the combination of Tiwani and Lee, as explained above, teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 3.
Lee additionally teaches wherein the wherein the target content is identified as satisfying the condition indicating popularity on a basis of data acquired from a designated data sharing platform (Songs are chosen based on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, a platform which provides (shares) data about popularity of music.....Pg. 3, Col. 2, section III, subsection A, lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Tiwani and Lee by Lee to provide the benefit of predicting popularity of future content based on analysis of multiple aspects of popularity over time (Lee, Pg. 2, Col. 1, subheading “1)”, lines 3-8). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the target content is content that satisfies a condition indicating popularity.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tiwani and Lee, as explained above, teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 4.
Lee additionally teaches wherein the content is music (Billboard Hot 100 is a music popularity service.....Pg. 3, Col. 2, section III, subsection A, lines 1-2), and the condition indicating the popularity is a number of times of reproduction in the data sharing platform (Popularity ranking is based on amount (number of times) of radio airplay and streaming activity, modes of music reproduction…..Pg. 3, Col. 2, section III, subsection A, lines 5-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Tiwani and Lee by Lee to provide the benefit of predicting popularity of future content based on analysis of multiple aspects of popularity over time (Lee, Pg. 2, Col. 1, subheading “1)”, lines 3-8). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the content is music, and the condition indicating the popularity is a number of times of reproduction in the data sharing platform.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tiwani and Lee, as explained above, teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 5.
Lee additionally teaches wherein the feature is a rhythm of music (Shown on pg. 8 in Fig. 7 and described immediately below the figure, predictions of popularity (Y) are made based on various features (X), including rhythm complexity features).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Tiwani and Lee by Lee to provide the benefit of predicting mean popularity content over time (Lee, Pg. 7, Col. 2, section E-1, lines 20-23). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the feature is a rhythm of music.
Regarding claim 7, Tiwani discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit uses the distribution of the features in one or more predetermined periods as input data (The predictions are made on the basis of the occurrence (trending, distribution) of n-grams from the particular past time period, thus using them as input data.....¶[0050], lines 4-6), but fails to disclose acquiring the distribution of the features in the prediction period by prediction using a learned model, instead teaching wherein the model is derived on the basis of polynomial curves (¶[0012], lines 5-9).
Lee teaches a method of predicting trending popular music features based on evaluating target content, which operates by acquiring a distribution of the features in a prediction period (Features determined from training data (reflective of a current period between 6/13/2009 and 11/11/2012) are used to determine the popularity distribution of those same features in a prediction period from 11/11/2012 to 4/19/2014…..Pg. 7, Col 1, Section D-1, lines 6-12, and section D-2, lines 10-12) by prediction using a learned model (The research of Lee considers using different approaches to form popularity predictions, including the use of SVM, and CNN, machine learning (learned model) algorithms…..Pg. 9, Col 2, “Appendix”, lines 1-5, 13-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tiwani by Lee to provide the benefit prediction accuracy with less training data (Lee, Pg. 9, Col 2, “Appendix”, lines 14-20). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the distribution of the features in the prediction period is acquired by prediction using a learned model.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tiwani and Lee, as explained above, teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 7.
Lee additionally teaches wherein the control unit generates the learned model used for the prediction by using prescribed machine learning (The learned model uses support vector machines (SVMs) (a prescribed machine learning model)…..Pg. 7, Col 2, section D-2, lines 1-5) with data regarding the target content satisfying the condition indicating the popularity, acquired from a designated data sharing platform, as learning data (The SVMs are trained on (and learn from) content (data) chosen based on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, which ranks music based on popularity.....Pg. 7, Col 2, section D-1, lines 6-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Tiwani and Lee by Lee to provide the benefit of predicting mean popularity of content over time (Lee, Pg. 7, Col. 2, section E-1, lines 20-23). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the control unit generates the learned model used for the prediction by using prescribed machine learning with data regarding the target content satisfying the condition indicating the popularity, acquired from a designated data sharing platform, as learning data.
Regarding claim 10, Tiwani, as explained above, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the screen is a screen in which the section extracted as the feature trend is highlighted on a one-dimensional grid.
Lee teaches a method of predicting trending popular music features based on evaluating target content, wherein results are displayed on a screen in which the section extracted as the feature trend (Shown in Fig. 7, popularity predictions for different audio characteristics (feature trends) on the X axis are plotted against different metrics for popularity on the Y axis…..Pg. 7, Col. 2, section E-1, lines 1-3) is highlighted (Each feature trend is assigned a color based on strength, highlighting stronger trends over weaker ones) on a one-dimensional grid (Each row evaluating results for feature vs popularity comprises its own 1x20 (one-dimensional) grid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tiwani by Lee to provide appropriate matching of audio features to the desired metric for popularity (Discussed in detail in Lee, Pg. 7, Col. 2, heading E (Results)). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the screen is a screen in which the section extracted as the feature trend is highlighted on a one-dimensional grid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Search was conducted in the field of business methods and data processing/analysis, with a focus on music-focused data processing. While search yielded prior art that teach the independent claims, and several dependent claims through the combination of art cited in the rejections above (Tiwani, Lee), neither of these, or other prior art located teach the limitations of claim 11, wherein the screen is a screen in which a section having a value higher than a threshold in the current period and a section having a value higher than the threshold in the prediction period are indicated on a one-dimensional grid, and further a section extracted as the feature trend among sections having a value higher than the threshold in the prediction period is emphasized.
The examiner notes that support for specific terms of this claim are taken from applicant’s figures 13 and 14 and corresponding sections of the written description, and that the one-dimensional grid is understood by the examiner to indicate the row of two-dimensional cells at the bottom of fig. 13, which is one-dimensional in the sense that it is a single row of cells, while the cells themselves have two dimensions such that the data from the current and prediction periods may be combined into one figure (e.g. using shading or hashing) displayed as a part of a screen of a user interface as indicated in fig. 14. Additionally, the emphasized sections are understood to be the sections of Figs. 13 and 14 where a bolded border is drawn around a section on the one-dimensional grid.
Additional search was conducted in the fields of information graphics and business methods to find prior art that teaches this method of displaying information. The closest prior art located is Grounds et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2015/0052485, which teaches using a single column to summarize reported data for machine maintenance alerts, but this fails to meet all the limitations as stated above, at least because the reported data is for live status updates of machinery, which is not considered by the examiner to by analogous to predicted status trends.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kay et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2012/0096011, teaches a method for discovering musical artists who share similarities with already-popular artists.
Fischerström, US-PG-PUB No. 2017/0308794, teaches a method for predicting popular artists based on correlation with listening habits of select platform users (early adopters).
Music Popularity Prediction Through Data analysis of Music’s Characteristics [online]. International Journal of Science, Technology and Society, 2021, teaches method for identifying future popular music based on machine learning analysis of previously popular music.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M RINEHART whose telephone number is (571)272-2778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547. 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.
/SEAN M RINEHART/Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/FAN S TSANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694