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 .
This communication is in response to Preliminary Amendment filed on June 13, 2024. Claims 1-18 and 20 are pending. Claims 10 and 13 are amended. Claim 19 is cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/13/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: a typo in line 2 where the work ‘from’ should be removed. 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 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 18 and 20 recite:
receiving circuitry to receive user data indicative of a plurality of content items accessed by a user within a set time interval;
access circuitry to obtain a plurality of sub-items associated with one or more of the plurality of content items from one or more content sources in dependence on the user data, the plurality of sub-items each comprising at least one of image content, audio content, and text content;
summary circuitry to receive a set of sub-items comprising at least some of the plurality of sub-items and generate a summary content in dependence on the set of sub-items, the summary circuitry comprising one or more machine learning models trained to generate the summary content; and
storage circuitry to store the summary content.
Step 1: The claims as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: At least claims 1, 18 and 20 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “generate a summary content in dependence on the set of sub-items” is a mental step. A user can mentally or using pen and paper generate a summary of content depending on certain other content criteria. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 1, 18 and 20 recite the limitation “receive user data indicative of a plurality of content items accessed by a user within a set time interval”. This limitation is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
In addition, the limitation “obtain a plurality of sub-items associated with one or more of the plurality of content items from one or more content sources in dependence on the user data, the plurality of sub-items each comprising at least one of image content, audio content, and text content” is also an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Furthermore, the limitation “receive a set of sub-items comprising at least some of the plurality of sub-items” is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
In addition, the limitation, “store the summary content” is also an additional element and is using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as storing or simply adding computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Furthermore, Claims 1 and 20 recite the following additional elements “a computer”, “computer software executed by the computer”, “data processing apparatus”, “receiving circuitry”, “access circuitry”, “summary circuitry” “storage circuitry”, and “one or more machine learning models trained to generate the summary content” note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer components and software to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: The conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "obtaining” and “receiving” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Furthermore, the “storing” limitation is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 2-4 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 2-4 furthermore recite:
(claim 2): wherein one or more of the machine learning models are trained to generate a text-based script in dependence on the set of sub-items;
(claim 3): wherein one or more of the machine learning models are trained to generate the text-based script in dependence on a target length for the text-based script; and
(claim 4): wherein the target length is set in dependence on feedback data associated with playback by the user of one or more previously generated instances of summary content, the feedback data indicative of a duration of a played back proportion of at least one of the one or more previously generated instances of summary content.
Step 1: Claims 2-4 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 2-4 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitations “generate a text-based script in dependence on the set of sub-items”, “generate the text-based script in dependence on a target length for the text-based script”, and “wherein the target length is set in dependence on feedback data associated with playback by the user of one or more previously generated instances of summary content, the feedback data indicative of a duration of a played back proportion of at least one of the one or more previously generated instances of summary content” are mental steps.
One can mentally or using pen and paper generate a script or notation depending on a set of items or a user chosen length or feedback data for the script or notation. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 2-4 recite the additional element of “one or more machine learning models trained to generate the text script” note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer software to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 2-4 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 5 and 6 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 5 and 6 furthermore recite:
(claim 5): wherein the set of sub-items comprises one or more non-accessed sub-items associated with a respective content item of the plurality of content items, each non-accessed sub-item having not been accessed by the user within the set time interval, and each of the one or more non-accessed sub-items associated with the respective content item being associated with a portion of the respective content item;
(claim 6): wherein in a first mode of operation the set of sub-items comprises only a plurality of non-accessed sub-items associated with one or more respective content items of the plurality of content items, and in a second mode of operation the set of sub-items comprises only a plurality previously accessed sub-items associated with one or more respective content items of the plurality of content items, wherein one of the first mode of operation and the second mode of operation is selected in response to a user input by the user.
Step 1: Claims 5 and 6 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claim 6 recites limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “one of the first mode of operation and the second mode of operation is selected in response to a user input by the user” is a mental step.
One can mentally select a mode of operation based on a user inputting their preference Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
Claims 5 and 6 recite:
“wherein the set of sub-items comprises one or more non-accessed sub-items associated with a respective content item of the plurality of content items, each non-accessed sub-item having not been accessed by the user within the set time interval, and each of the one or more non-accessed sub-items associated with the respective content item being associated with a portion of the respective content item” and “wherein in a first mode of operation the set of sub-items comprises only a plurality of non-accessed sub-items associated with one or more respective content items of the plurality of content items, and in a second mode of operation the set of sub-items comprises only a plurality previously accessed sub-items associated with one or more respective content items of the plurality of content items”.
These limitations are additional elements, further define the contents of the set of sub-items in the ‘receiving’ step, as addressed in claim 1, and are insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
With respect to the “receiving” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity, in claim 1 above, when re-evaluated these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 5 and 6 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 7 and 8 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 7 and 8 furthermore recite:
(claim 7): wherein at least one of the previously accessed sub-items is associated with at least one of temporal portion and a spatial portion of a video game, and the access circuitry is configured to obtain one or more non-accessed sub-items also associated with at least one of the temporal portion and the spatial portion of the video game;
(claim 8): wherein at least one of the previously accessed sub-items is associated with at least one of temporal portion and a spatial portion of a video game, and the access circuitry is configured to obtain one or more non-accessed sub-items also associated with at least one of the temporal portion and the spatial portion of the video game.
Step 1: Claims 7 and 8 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 7 and 8 recite the abstract idea of mental processes as being dependent on claim 1.
Step 2A prong 2:
Claims 7 and 8 recite:
“wherein at least one of the previously accessed sub-items is associated with at least one of temporal portion and a spatial portion of a video game, and obtain one or more non-accessed sub-items also associated with at least one of the temporal portion and the spatial portion of the video game” and “wherein at least one of the previously accessed sub-items is associated with at least one of temporal portion and a spatial portion of a video game, and obtain one or more non-accessed sub-items also associated with at least one of the temporal portion and the spatial portion of the video game”.
These limitations are additional elements, further define the user data in the ‘receiving of user data’ step, as addressed in claim 1, and are insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Furthermore, claims 7 and 8 recite “obtain one or more non-accessed sub-items also associated with at least one of the temporal portion and the spatial portion of the video game” and “obtain one or more non-accessed sub-items also associated with at least one of the temporal portion and the spatial portion of the video game”, which are also insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the additional element of “access circuitry” note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer elements to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “obtaining” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity, in claim 1 above, when re-evaluated these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 7 and 8 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 9 and 10 depend from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 9 and 10 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 9 and 10 furthermore recite:
(claim 9): wherein the user data is indicative of one or more non-accessed sub-items associated with a respective content item of the plurality of content items, and wherein the access circuitry is configured to obtain one or more of the non-accessed sub-items associated with the respective content item of the plurality of content items in dependence on the user data;
(claim 10): wherein one or more of the non-accessed sub-items comprise at least one of image content, audio content, and text content associated with one or more of: a skipped portion of a video game; a skipped in-game dialogue in a video game; a skipped virtual object in a computer generated environment associated with a video game; a future portion of a video game accessible by continued progression of the video game by the user; a skipped portion of an audio-only content; and a future portion of an audio-only content.
Step 1: Claims 9 and 10 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 9 and 10 recite the abstract idea of mental processes as being dependent on claim 1.
Step 2A prong 2:
Claims 9 and 10 recite:
“wherein the user data is indicative of one or more non-accessed sub-items associated with a respective content item of the plurality of content items, and wherein the access circuitry is configured to obtain one or more of the non-accessed sub-items associated with the respective content item of the plurality of content items in dependence on the user data” and “wherein one or more of the non-accessed sub-items comprise at least one of image content, audio content, and text content associated with one or more of: a skipped portion of a video game; a skipped in-game dialogue in a video game; a skipped virtual object in a computer generated environment associated with a video game; a future portion of a video game accessible by continued progression of the video game by the user; a skipped portion of an audio-only content; and a future portion of an audio-only content”.
These limitations are additional elements, further define the user data in the ‘receiving of user data’ step, as addressed in claim 1, and are insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Furthermore, claims 9 and 10 recite “obtain one or more of the non-accessed sub-items associated with the respective content item of the plurality of content items in dependence on the user data” and “wherein one or more of the non-accessed sub-items comprise at least one of image content, audio content, and text content associated with one or more of: a skipped portion of a video game; a skipped in-game dialogue in a video game; a skipped virtual object in a computer generated environment associated with a video game; a future portion of a video game accessible by continued progression of the video game by the user; a skipped portion of an audio-only content; and a future portion of an audio-only content”, which are also insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites the additional element of “access circuitry” note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer elements to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “obtaining” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity, in claim 1 above, when re-evaluated these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 9 and 10 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claim 11 recites the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claim 11 recites:
wherein the receiving circuitry is configured to receive second user data indicative of a second plurality of content items accessed by the user within another set time interval starting at or subsequent to an end of the set time interval, and wherein:
the access circuitry is configured to obtain a second plurality of sub-items associated with one or more of the second plurality of content items from one or more content sources in dependence on the second user data, the second plurality of sub-items each comprising at least one of image content, audio content, and text content;
the summary circuitry is configured to generate a second summary content in dependence on a second set of sub-items comprising at least some of the second plurality of sub-items using one or more of the machine learning models; and
the storage circuitry is configured to store the second summary content.
Step 1: The claim as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claim 11 recites limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “generate a second summary content in dependence on a second set of sub-items comprising at least some of the second plurality of sub-items” is a mental step. A user can mentally or using pen and paper generate a summary of content depending on certain other content criteria. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claim 11 recites the limitation “receive second user data indicative of a second plurality of content items accessed by the user within another set time interval starting at or subsequent to an end of the set time interval”. This limitation is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
In addition, the limitation “obtain a second plurality of sub-items associated with one or more of the second plurality of content items from one or more content sources in dependence on the second user data, the second plurality of sub-items each comprising at least one of image content, audio content, and text content” is also an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
In addition, the limitation, “store the second summary content” is also an additional element and is using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as storing or simply adding computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Furthermore, Claim 11 recites the following additional elements “receiving circuitry”, “access circuitry”, “summary circuitry”, “storage circuitry”, and “one or more machine learning models to generate the second summary content” note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer components and software to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: The conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "obtaining” and “receiving” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Furthermore, the “storing” limitation is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claims 12-14 depend from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 12-14 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 12-14 furthermore recite:
(claim 12): wherein the set of sub-items comprises a subset of the plurality of sub-items selected in dependence on one or more selection parameters that specify one or more user preferences;
(claim 13): wherein the one or more user preferences comprise one or more of: one or more video game genres; one or more video game titles; one or more video game sets comprising a plurality of associated video game titles; one or more podcast genres; and one or more audiobook genres;
(claim 14): wherein the summary circuitry is configured to define an ordered sequence for the set of sub-items in dependence on the user preferences and priority ratings associated with the user preferences, and wherein the summary circuitry is configured to generate the summary content in dependence on the ordered sequence for the set of sub-items.
Step 1: Claims 12-14 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 12- 14 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “wherein the set of sub-items comprises a subset of the plurality of sub-items selected in dependence on one or more selection parameters that specify one or more user preferences”, “wherein the one or more user preferences comprise one or more of: one or more video game genres; one or more video game titles; one or more video game sets comprising a plurality of associated video game titles; one or more podcast genres; and one or more audiobook genres” is a mental step. One can mentally select data based on a user desired preference. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
The limitations “define an ordered sequence for the set of sub-items in dependence on the user preferences and priority ratings associated with the user preferences” and “generate the summary content in dependence on the ordered sequence for the set of sub-items” are also mental steps. A person can mentally define how to order data items based on preference and priority rating criteria to generate a summary of the ordered data. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
Claim 14 recites the additional element of “summary circuitry” note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer elements to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 12-14 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 15-17 depend from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 15-17 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 15-17 furthermore recite:
(claim 15): wherein the user data is indicative of a plurality of content items accessed using one or more user devices of the user within the set time interval, the one or more user devices comprising one or more of a video game console and a smartphone device;
(claim 16): wherein the plurality of content items comprise at least one of one or more audio-visual content items and one or more audio-only content items;
(claim 17): wherein the plurality of content items comprise one or more video games.
Step 1: Claims 15-17 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 15-17 recite the abstract idea of mental processes as being dependent on claim 1.
Step 2A prong 2:
Claim 15 recites: “wherein the user data is indicative of a plurality of content items accessed using one or more user devices of the user within the set time interval, the one or more user devices comprising one or more of a video game console and a smartphone device”. These limitations are additional elements, further define the user data in the ‘receiving of user data’ step, as addressed in claim 1, and are insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Furthermore, claims 16 and 17 recite “wherein the plurality of content items comprise at least one of one or more audio-visual content items and one or more audio-only content items” and “wherein the plurality of content items comprise one or more video games”, which are also additional elements that further define the plurality of content items in the ‘receiving of user data’ step, as addressed in claim 1, and are insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
With respect to the “receiving” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity, in claim 1 above, when re-evaluated these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 15-17 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory} above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to place them within the four statutory categories of the invention.
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 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 inve7ntion 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.
Claims 1-5, 11, 12, 14-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPub 2012/0197630 by Lyons et al (hereafter Lyons).
Referring to claim 1, Lyons discloses a data processing apparatus [Abstract; computer system 700, para 130, Fig 7] comprising:
receiving circuitry [processor 702, Fig 7] to receive user data indicative of a plurality of content items accessed by a user within a set time interval [contextual information includes a context-based allotted time, para 14; the context-based allotted time represents a context-based period of time during which a user may read or listen to a summary, para 49; context-based allotted time can be user-specified and/or determined from contextual information, para 51-55;
context-based allotted time apportioned among multiple portions of source text (i.e. reads on: plurality of content items), para 74, 76-78, Fig 2, element 202; contextual information 510 is evaluated to determine one or more context-based allotted time 512, para 119, Fig 5 and 6, element 512];
access circuitry [processor 702, Fig 7] to obtain a plurality of sub-items associated with one or more of the plurality of content items from one or more content sources in dependence on the user data [source texts are apportioned into portions, para 73-78, Fig 2, element 202; source texts from computer-accessible information source or media, para 48, 78; source texts 504, Fig 5,6], the plurality of sub-items each comprising at least one of image content, audio content, and text content [source text can correspond to multiple text documents or files, para 77; source text can include computer readable text or speech, para 48];
summary circuitry [processor 702, Fig 7] to receive a set of sub-items comprising at least some of the plurality of sub-items and generate a summary content in dependence on the set of sub-items [each of the portions of the source text are summarized as a function of corresponding text summarization compression metric for each of the portions based on the context-allotted time for the corresponding portion, para 84-85, Fig 2, elements 204, 206; summary 502 is generated, para 120, Fig 5,6], the summary circuitry comprising one or more machine learning models trained to generate the summary content [wherein contextual information evaluator 520 used to evaluate contextual information and to determine context-based allotted time 512 includes machine learning logic and inference logic, para 119, 136; Fig 5-7]; and
storage circuitry [processor 702, Fig 7] to store the summary content [summary is sent to user device 514 that presents the context based summary 502, para 115; summarization can be implemented on the user device 514, para 121; text summary is presented for user-adjustment to presentation rate (i.e. on user device), para 100-105, Fig 4, element 402; Examiner submits that the user device which includes a hand-held device or mobile phone [para 115,58] includes storage memory].
Referring to claim 18, the limitations of the claim are similar to those of claim 1 in the form of a method [Lyons, Abstract]. As such, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Referring to claim 20, the limitations of the claim are similar to those of claim 1 in the form of a computer medium storing computer software executed by a computer [Lyons, storage/memory 704 includes computer readable medium having computer program product logic 706, para 132, Fig 7]. As such, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Referring to claim 2, Lyons discloses that one or more of the machine learning models are trained to generate a text-based script in dependence on the set of sub-items [machine implemented text summarization includes NLP techniques, para 71,120; each of the portions of source text are summarized. Fig 2, element 206].
Referring to claim 3, Lyons discloses that one or more of the machine learning models are trained to generate the text-based script in dependence on a target length for the text-based script [text summarizer may condense a source text based on a compression ratio which represents a degree to which a feature of the source text (e.g. word count) is to be reduced, para 4; measure to be attained in the summary includes word count, sentences, paragraphs, volume or amount of data, para 63-66].
Referring to claim 4, Lyons discloses that the target length is set in dependence on feedback data associated with playback by the user of one or more previously generated instances of summary content, the feedback data indicative of a duration of a played back proportion of at least one of the one or more previously generated instances of summary content [wherein the compression metric is re-computed with respect to at least a portion of the textual content and a revised context-based allotted time, para 90, Fig 3, element 304; recomputing of compression metric may be initiated based on a change in available time to review a summary, para 93; recomputing of compression metric in response to changed contextual information that may increase or decrease a user’s available time to read or listen to a remaining portion of the first (previous) summary, para 94-95].
Referring to claim 5, Lyons discloses that the set of sub-items comprises one or more non-accessed sub-items associated with a respective content item of the plurality of content items, each non-accessed sub-item having not been accessed by the user within the set time interval, and each of the one or more non-accessed sub-items associated with the respective content item being associated with a portion of the respective content item [compression metric can be recomputed with respect to an decrease in a user’s available time to read or listen to a remaining portion of the first summary, para 94-96; factors that may influence that the user’s available time to read to listen to remaining portion of the summary has changed, para 107].
Referring to claim 11, Lyons discloses that the receiving circuitry is configured to
receive second user data indicative of a second plurality of content items accessed by the user within another set time interval starting at or subsequent to an end of the set time interval [compression metric re-computed to include incorporate new source text and based on new or changed contextual information that may increase or decrease user’s available time to read or listen to remaining or un-presented portion of first summary, para 94], and wherein:
the access circuitry is configured to obtain a second plurality of sub-items associated with one or more of the second plurality of content items from one or more content sources in dependence on the second user data, the second plurality of sub-items each comprising at least one of image content, audio content, and text content; the summary circuitry is configured to generate a second summary content in dependence on a second set of sub-items comprising at least some of the second plurality of sub-items using one or more of the machine learning models; and the storage circuitry is configured to store the second summary content [second summary is generated based on re-computed compression metric, para 90-97, Fig 3, elements 304-306].
Referring to claim 12, Lyons discloses that the set of sub-items comprises a subset of the plurality of sub-items selected in dependence on one or more selection parameters that specify one or more user preferences [contextual information used to apportion context-based allotted time includes user-specified relevance including user preferences for subject matter, information source etc. pertaining to the multiple portions of source text, para 80-82].
Referring to claim 14, Lyons discloses that the summary circuitry is configured to define an ordered sequence for the set of sub-items in dependence on the user preferences and priority ratings associated with the user preferences, and wherein the summary circuitry is configured to generate the summary content in dependence on the ordered sequence for the set of sub-items [user may tag or rank the multiple portions of source text by preference, para 82; relative ranking, ordering and prioritization of the multiple portions of source text, measure or indication of relevance, para 81].
Referring to claim 15, Lyons discloses that the user data is indicative of a plurality of content items accessed using one or more user devices of the user within the set time interval, the one or more user devices comprising one or more of a video game console and a smartphone device [mobile device, 58; handheld device, para 115].
Referring to claim 16 Lyons discloses that the plurality of content items comprise at least one of one or more audio-visual content items and one or more audio-only content items [source text can include speech, para 48].
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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2012/0197630 by Lyons et al (hereafter Lyons), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 12,155,615 issued to Barton et al (hereafter Barton).
Referring to claim 6, while Lyons discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses that user can opt for greater detail during presentation (i.e. accessed sub-item) of a previously generated summary [para 82], it remains silent as to a first mode of operation the set of sub-items comprises only a plurality of non-accessed sub-items associated with one or more respective content items of the plurality of content items, and in a second mode of operation the set of sub-items comprises only a plurality previously accessed sub-items associated with one or more respective content items of the plurality of content items, wherein one of the first mode of operation and the second mode of operation is selected in response to a user input by the user.
Barton teaches that the story combination table 322 that includes a selected both field 326 that counts a number of accounts that have selected both of a first and second story (i.e. reads on: plurality of previously accessed sub-items in second mode). Barton also discloses a step (i.e. mode of operation) of receiving a list of viewed content displayed within a particular account [col. 10, lines 49-56, Fig 6, element 610]. Barton also discloses a second step (mode of operation) of determining a list of unviewed content included in a list of content received that is different from the list of viewed content [col. 10, lines 57-60, Fig 6, element 620]. Barton also discloses that a user can provide input in the form of opting in (or opting out) of the methods described including preferring whether (or not) to have their user specific information used to customize their user experience [col. 2, lines 33-40].
Lyons and Barton are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- summarization/aggregation of data for display.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the presentation of summary content in Lyons to include allowing a user to execute operations for displaying the viewed and unviewed stories in Barton because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the display of viewed and unviewed stories of Barton further refines the type of content presented in the summaries of Lyons.
Referring to claim 7, while Lyons discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses that user can opt for greater detail during presentation of a previously generated summary [para 82- Examiner submits that the presentation of a previously generated summary reads on the claimed previously-accessed subitem], and also discloses determining new or changed contextual information that may increase or decrease user’s available time to read or listen to remaining or un-presented portion of first summary [para 94], which Examiner submits indicates that the remaining portion of the first summary is not listened to or read is non-accessed. However, Lyons remains silent as to obtaining the non-accessed sub-items associated with the respective content item of the plurality of content items in dependence on the user data.
Barton teaches determining a list of unviewed content included in a list of content received [col. 10, lines 57-60, Fig 6, element 620].
Lyons and Barton are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- summarization/aggregation of data for display.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the presentation of summary content that includes determining unread or unlistened portions of summary content in Lyons to include obtaining a list of unviewed stories in Barton because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the display of viewed and unviewed stories of Barton further refines the type of content presented in the summaries of Lyons.
Referring to claim 9, while Lyons discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses determining new or changed contextual information that may increase or decrease user’s available time to read or listen to un-presented portion of first summary [para 94], which Examiner submits indicates that the remaining portion of the first summary is not listened to or read is non-accessed. However, Lyons remains silent as to obtaining the non-accessed sub-items associated with the respective content item of the plurality of content items in dependence on the user data.
Barton teaches determining a list of unviewed content included in a list of content received [col. 10, lines 57-60, Fig 6, element 620].
Lyons and Barton are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- summarization/aggregation of data for display.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the presentation of summary content that includes determining unread or unlistened portions of summary content in Lyons to include obtaining a list of unviewed stories in Barton because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the display of viewed and unviewed stories of Barton further refines the type of content presented in the summaries of Lyons.
Referring to claim 10, Lyons/Barton discloses that one or more of the non-accessed sub-items comprise at least one of image content, audio content, and text content associated with one or more of: a skipped portion of a video game; a skipped in-game dialogue in a video game; a skipped virtual object in a computer generated environment associated with a video game; a future portion of a video game accessible by continued progression of the video game by the user; a skipped portion of an audio-only content; and a future portion of an audio-only content [Lyons, increase or decrease in user’s available time to read or listen to remaining portion of first summary (i.e. remainder of summary is skipped), para 94; Barton, selected but not viewed content, see selected first, viewed second field 327 and selected second, viewed first field 328, col. 8, line 61- col. 9, line 3, Fig 3].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons in view of Barton, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US PGPub 2021/0146256 by Benedetto et al (hereafter Benedetto).
Referring to claim 8, while Lyons/Barton discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses summaries including previously accessed subitems and non-accessed subitems [Lyons, increase or decrease in user’s available time to read or listen to remaining portion of first summary, para 94; Barton, list of unviewed content, col. 10, lines 57-60, Fig 6, element 620], wherein the sub-items include videos and gaming applications [Barton, selection of a video content, col. 3, lines 22-35; game application, col. 15, lines 52-58], it remains silent as to the subitems associated with at one of temporal portion and a spatial portion of a video game.
Benedetto teaches tracking a user’s progression within a video game that includes location (reads on: spatial portion of video game) and time spent (temporal portion of video game), based on gameplay information from the video game [para 19].
Lyons, Barton and Benedetto are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- identification of contextual information pertaining to content.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the summary content of Lyons to include tracking of a user’s location and time spent, as progression parameters, in video game content items in Benedetto because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the video game content items and their corresponding tracked user location and time spent parameters of Benedetto further define the types of source content summarized in Lyons.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons in view of Barton, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benedetto.
Referring to claims 13 and 17, Lyons/Barton discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses that content which is summarized/aggregated includes speech and text [Lyons, source text can correspond to multiple text documents or files, para 77; source text can include computer readable text or speech, para 48] and videos [Barton, videos, game applications, col. 3, lines 22-35, col. 15, lines 52-58] and discloses that user-specified preferences are used as relevance factors by contextual information to apportion context-based allotted time including subject matter, information source etc. pertaining to the multiple portions of source text [Lyons, para 80-82]. However it remains silent as to the one or more user preferences comprising one or more of: one or more video game genres; one or more video game titles; one or more video game sets comprising a plurality of associated video game titles; one or more podcast genres; and one or more audiobook genres; and that the content items specifically being one or more video games.
Benedetto teaches that recording user preferences for types of video gameplay assistance information to be selected for a user associated with regard to a corresponding video game are recorded in user profile 330 [para 51], wherein gameplay data conditions used in determining the assistance information are associated with a game title [see claims 1 and 5] and that an assistance information processing application 440 can ensure that the appropriate assistance information (e.g. pertaining to corresponding video game, preferred type/source is selected for the user [para 58].
Lyons, Barton and Benedetto are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- identification of contextual information pertaining to content.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the summarization of the source content items of Lyons to include video games and user preferences including one or more video game titles, as in Benedetto because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the video game content items and video game title gameplay conditions of Benedetto further define the types of source content summarized in Lyons as well as the user preferences for selecting the items to be summarized.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Eatedali et al (US Patent 12,551800) directed to: selection of content/portions/scenes/levels of video games based on a user selected game and time to play the game, wherein the selected content/portions/scenes/levels of video games are compiled or arranged as a structured gameplay experience and presented to the user for play [Fig 2, 3B and corresponding portions of specification];
El Ghazzal et al (US 2022/0303632) directed to: adjusting the playback speed of one or more segments of a media item accessible to a user based on context information associated with the media item [Fig 5] and scoring of the segments by a machine learning model [para 25, Fig 3, element 308 and corresponding portions of specification];
Kikin-Gil et al (US 2021/0406296) directed to: generation of summaries based on user distraction levels with respect to content items [Fig 8A-E and corresponding portions of specification].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/C.M.S/
/AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164