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 .
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.
The claimed invention is directed to a process of reviewing and managing posted content to ensure the content follows rules, regulations and community standards without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “identify a set of algorithms relating to the set of effects based on the metadata of the effect package” and “select a set of template videos based on the set of algorithms”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor circuitry and memory are generic computer components, specified at a high level of generality and/or are generic tools used to implement the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into the practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor and memory device are generic computer component recited at a high level of generality and the receiving an effect package step is well understood, routine and conventional (WURC).
Claim 1 recites: (Original) A computer system for generating effect-loaded videos, the computer system comprising:
processing circuitry and memory storing instructions that, when executed, causes the processing circuitry to:
receive an effect package comprising metadata relating to a set of effects capable of being applied to a video file;
identify a set of algorithms relating to the set of effects based on the metadata of the effect package;
select a set of template videos based on the set of algorithms;
generate a set of effect-loaded videos by applying the set of effects to the set of template videos; and
output the set of effect-loaded videos.
The invention is directed to content moderation which is a process of reviewing and managing posted content to ensure the content follows rules, regulations and community standards. This includes review for hate speech, extremism, illegal or inappropriate content. The object is to create a safe space especially for children.
Analysis for clams 1 and 11.
Step 2A prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? --- Yes
The following steps are considered mental processes (MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)III):
identify a set of algorithms relating to the set of effects based on the metadata of the effect package;
select a set of template videos based on the set of algorithms;
For example, human content moderator can identify (an evaluation) a set of algorithms relating to a set of effects (e.g. filters, digital object placements and interactions, and various other augmented reality effects) and select a set of template videos based on the set of algorithms. Applicant’s specification essentially describes that generally human moderators are known in paragraphs 12 and 13. Additionally, it is noted that even mental processes which may need the physical aids such as pen and paper can be still mental processes (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B)) and even the fact that the claimed invention is performing steps on a computer does not prevent the function from being a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). As result, the limitation recites a mental process.
Step 2A, prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application – NO
The additional elements are:
processing circuitry and memory,
algorithms
receive an effect package comprising metadata relating to a set of effects capable of being applied to a video file;
generate a set of effect-loaded videos by applying the set of effects to the set of template videos; and
output the set of effect-loaded videos.
The processor circuitry and memory are generic computer components, specified at a high level of generality and/or are generic tools used to implement the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into the practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(f)).
The receive an effect package step is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
The algorithms, generate and output a set of effect-loaded videos steps are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and do not integrate the abstract idea into the practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(f)).
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. -- NO
The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the processor and memory device are generic computer component recited at a high level of generality and the receiving an effect package step is well understood, routine and conventional (WURC).
For example, the courts have recognized that retrieving information, 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 is well understood, routine and conventional. Additionally, paragraph 1 and 13 of Applicant’s specification describe receiving an effect video is well understood, routine and conventional.
Claims 2 and 12 recite a content review platform from which a content reviewer can review the set of effect-loaded video which is an abstract idea as explained above regarding the human content moderator.
Claim 4 and 14 recite selecting which is a mental process as explained above regarding the human content moderator.
Claims 3, 5-10, 13 and 15-19 recite generic computer components and/or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and do not integrate the abstract idea into the practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(f)).
Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons as described above regarding claim 1, wherein automation of a manual process (human content moderation) does not integrate the exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a)(I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pique Corchs et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0097866) discloses a video effects application executing on a client device having an image capture device and receiving video data captured by the image capture device.
Miller et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0098255) discloses systems and methods for moderating branded content provided by users to an online content publishing and distribution network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mishawn N Hunter whose telephone number is (571)272-7635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-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, Thai Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/MISHAWN N. HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484