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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to: Application filed on August 16th, 2024
Claims 1-20 are pending claims.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, US 9,583,142 B1 in view of De Boursetty, US 10,877,982 B1.
As for independent claim 1:
Zhu discloses a method comprising:
identifying, by a computing system and from a plurality of media content items, a seed media content item with one or more effect attributes indicating one or more effects used in at least the seed media content item (11:28-45, see video processing platform and maintains lip sync videos associated with selected audio content and applied video filters, 12:1-8);
determining, by the computing system, whether the seed media content item is associated with a creation attribute indicating one or more users created one or more other media content items including the one or more effects within a predefined period of time after the seed media content item was watched by the one or more users (13:39-67 and 14:35-42, Zhu discloses a challenge mechanism to challenge other users to generate and upload lip sync video and audio content);
responsive to determining the seed media content item is associated with the creation attribute, identifying, by the computing system, a set of media content items with the one or more effect attributes from the plurality of media content items (9:60-64, 11:9-24, Zhu discloses that once an audio content is selected, the system displays the user with a set of videos associated with that audio content, sort by most popular and most recent);
Zhu does not disclose outputting, by the computing system, an indication of an effect trend including the set of media content items. De Boursetty discloses outputting, by the computing system, an indication of an effect trend including the set of media content items in 9:25-55. In the cited sections De Boursetty discloses outputting trending content and trending viewership along with sentiment metric values. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Zhu to incorporate the teaching of De Boursetty video sentiment module, thus allowing improving content delivery based on metric values and utilize ML clustering technique (De Boursetty, 1: 39-52, 11:10-27).
As for dependent claim 3:
Zhu–De Boursetty discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising providing, by the computing system, the effect trend to a computing device through a media content item feed that presents each media content item in the set of media content items in a sequence (Zhu, 13:29-48, discloses video feed presented to the user and allow the user to browse through swipe up/down gesture input).
As for dependent claim 4:
Zhu–De Boursetty discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the computing system, the set of media content items contains fewer than a threshold number of media content items; and responsive to determining the set of media content items contains fewer than the threshold number of media content items, refraining, by the computing system, from providing the effect trend including the set of media content items (De Boursetty, 11:28-40, 9:60-67, discloses automatic removal from a recommendation set when below threshold).
As for dependent claim 5:
Zhu–De Boursetty discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more effects used in at least the seed media content item is a particular video effect and a particular audio effect (Zhu, 11:50-56 and 12:1-5, 12:45-65, discloses time machine effects to create a more dramatic effects on the video content, also se modifying in 2:37-40).
As for dependent claim 6:
Zhu–De Boursetty discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more effects used in at least the seed media content item is a particular audio effect (Zhu, 2:24-40, see effects on content and also 12:1-5).
As for dependent claim 7:
Zhu–De Boursetty discloses the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the seed media content item comprises identifying, by the computing system, the seed media content item from a set of seed media content items and each seed media content item in the set of seed media content items includes the one or more effect attributes (Zhu, 11:9-35, discloses browsing and searching media content items and change option).
As for dependent claim 8:
Zhu–De Boursetty discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the seed media content item has a higher inspiration metric compared to one or more other seed media content items from the set of seed media content items, the inspiration metric comprising one or more of a number of unique channels, a conversion rate, or lifetime views (Zhu, 8:55-60, see fans, likes, and other metrics).
As for independent claim 9:Claim 9 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and is respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for dependent claims 11-16:Claims 11-16 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claims 3-8 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for independent claim 17:Claim 17 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and is respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for dependent claims 18-20:Claims 19-20 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claims 3-4 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 2, 10, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, US 9,583,142 B1 in view of De Boursetty, US 10,877,989 B1 and in further view of Anderson, US PG PUB 2015/0178265.
As for dependent claim 2:
Zhu–De Boursetty discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each media content item in the set of media content items is associated with an embedding in an embedding space that is within a predetermined distance of an embedding of the seed media content item in the embedding space. Anderson discloses wherein each media content item in the set of media content items is associated with an embedding in an embedding space that is within a predetermined distance of an embedding of the seed media content item in the embedding space in 0012-0013, 0020. In the cited sections Anderson disclose neural network language model that produces distributed representations of videos in an embedding space and identifying set of videos within a predetermine distance of a seed video’s embedding. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Zhu and De Boursetty to incorporate the teaching of Anderson of neural network recommendation system, thus provide and improve video content recommendation and video feed quality (Anderson, 0013).
As for dependent claims 10, 18:Claims 10, 18 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 2 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 PM.
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, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. 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.
/David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights