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 office action is in response to Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 07/24/2024. By the amendment, Claims 3-5, 7, and 12-14 are amended, Claims 11 and 15-16 are cancelled, and Claims 17-23 are added. Therefore, Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 17-23 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claims for priority from foreign application CN202210079796.9 filed 01/24/2022 and parent application PCT/CN2023/073256 filed 01/19/2023 are acknowledged.
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 1-10, 12-14, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations "generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor" and “determining a task processing result based on the task processing rule and the task processing data”, as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “A method for processing a task, comprising: acquiring a task processing factor transmitted by a first client; determining task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients; and transmitting the task processing result to a third client” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering and transmitting data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the “A method for processing a task, comprising: acquiring a task processing factor transmitted by a first client; determining task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients; […] and transmitting the task processing result to a third client” limitations, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations “the determining a task processing result based on the task processing rule and the task processing data, comprises: determining a task execution result corresponding to each second client based on the task processing rule and task processing data corresponding to each second client; and sorting the task execution results corresponding to the second clients to acquire the task sorting result.” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “wherein the task processing result comprises a task sorting result” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “wherein the task processing result comprises a task sorting result”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitations “the generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor, comprises: performing weighted summation on each factor of the task processing factor to generate the task processing rule.” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “wherein the task processing factor comprises a plurality of factors” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “wherein the task processing factor comprises a plurality of factors”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitations “and determining the task processing data corresponding to the plurality of second clients based on the task starting time and the task ending time corresponding to each second client.” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “wherein the determining task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients, comprises: acquiring a task starting time and a task ending time corresponding to each second client of the plurality of second clients” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “wherein the determining task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients, comprises: acquiring a task starting time and a task ending time corresponding to each second client of the plurality of second clients”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 5, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “after the generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor, further comprising: storing the task processing rule”, i.e., storing information about the task processing rule. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitations “wherein the generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor, comprises: generating the task processing rule based on the task processing factor and the target sequence length.” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “before the generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor, further comprising: determining a target sequence length of the task sorting result” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “before the generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor, further comprising: determining a target sequence length of the task sorting result”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitations “and determining the task processing data corresponding to the plurality of second clients based on the task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room, and a task starting time and a task ending time corresponding to each second client.” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “wherein the task is a task for a live streaming room, and the determining task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients, comprises: acquiring task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room, wherein the live streaming room is a live streaming room where the first client, the second client, and the third client stay” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “wherein the task is a task for a live streaming room, and the determining task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients, comprises: acquiring task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room, wherein the live streaming room is a live streaming room where the first client, the second client, and the third client stay”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitations “the determining the task processing data corresponding to the plurality of second clients based on the task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room, and a task starting time and a task ending time corresponding to each second client, comprises: determining task processing data corresponding to the task ending point and task processing data corresponding to the task starting point based on the plurality of live streaming points and the corresponding task processing data; and for each second client, determining a difference value between the task processing data corresponding to the task ending point and the task processing data corresponding to the task starting point as the task processing data.” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “wherein the task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room comprises a plurality of live streaming points and corresponding task processing data, and the plurality of live streaming points comprise a task starting point and a task ending point corresponding to each second client” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “wherein the task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room comprises a plurality of live streaming points and corresponding task processing data, and the plurality of live streaming points comprise a task starting point and a task ending point corresponding to each second client”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations “generate a task processing rule based on the task processing factor, determine a task processing result based on the task processing rule and task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “A method for processing a task, applied to a first client, comprising: displaying a task setting interface; and in response to a task processing factor setting operation on the task setting interface, transmitting the task processing factor […] and transmit the task processing result to a third client.” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as displaying, transmitting, and gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Additionally, the limitations “to a server to make the server generate” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “A method for processing a task, applied to a first client, comprising: displaying a task setting interface; and in response to a task processing factor setting operation on the task setting interface, transmitting the task processing factor […] and transmit the task processing result to a third client.”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the “to a server to make the server generate” limitations amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations “configured to generate a task processing rule based on the task processing factor” and “configured to determine a task processing result based on the task processing rule and the task processing data“ as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “configured to acquire a task processing factor transmitted by a first client […] configured to determine task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients […]and […] configured to transmit the task processing result to a third client.” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as displaying, transmitting, and gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Additionally, the limitations “A device for processing a task, comprising :an acquisition module,” “a data determination module,” “a result determination module”, and “a first transmission module” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “configured to acquire a task processing factor transmitted by a first client […] configured to determine task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients […]and […] configured to transmit the task processing result to a third client.”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the “A device for processing a task, comprising :an acquisition module,” “a data determination module,” “a result determination module”, and “a first transmission module” limitations amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 12, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “An electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer executable instructions; and the processor executes the computer executable instructions stored on the memory, causing the processor to perform the method for processing a task according to claim 1.”, are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 13, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “An electronic device, comprising a display, a processor, and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer executable instructions, the display is connected to the processor; and the processor executes the computer executable instructions stored on the memory, causing the processor to perform the method for processing a task according to claim 9.”, are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, it states “and configured to display a task setting interface,“ i.e., displaying information about the task setting interface. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 14, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “A computer readable storage medium, wherein computer executable instructions are stored in the computer readable storage medium, and the computer executable instructions, when executed by a processor, implement the method for processing a task according to claim 1.”, are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 17, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “A computer readable storage medium, wherein computer executable instructions are stored in the computer readable storage medium, and the computer executable instructions, when executed by a processor, implement the method for processing a task according to claim 9.”, are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations “the result determination module is further configured to determine a task execution result corresponding to each second client based on the task processing rule and task processing data corresponding to each second client; and sort the task execution results corresponding to the second clients to acquire the task sorting result.” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “wherein the task processing result comprises a task sorting result” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “wherein the task processing result comprises a task sorting result”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations “and the rule generation module is further configured to: perform weighted summation on each factor of the task processing factor to generate the task processing rule.” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “wherein the task processing factor comprises a plurality of factors” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “wherein the task processing factor comprises a plurality of factors”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations “and determine the task processing data corresponding to the plurality of second clients based on the task starting time and the task ending time corresponding to each second client.” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “wherein the data determination module is further configured to: acquire a task starting time and a task ending time corresponding to each second client of the plurality of second clients” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “wherein the data determination module is further configured to: acquire a task starting time and a task ending time corresponding to each second client of the plurality of second clients”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 21, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “a storage module, configured to store the task processing rule”, i.e., storing information about the task processing rule. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 22, the limitations “wherein the rule generation module is further configured to generate the task processing rule based on the task processing factor and the target sequence length.” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “a sequence length determination module, configured to determine a target sequence length of the task ranking result” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “a sequence length determination module, configured to determine a target sequence length of the task ranking result”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 23, the limitations “and determine the task processing data corresponding to the plurality of second clients based on the task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room, and a task starting time and a task ending time corresponding to each second client.” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “wherein the task is a task for a live streaming room, and the data determination module is further configured to: acquire task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room, wherein the live streaming room is a live streaming room where the first client, the second client, and the third client stay” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “wherein the task is a task for a live streaming room, and the data determination module is further configured to: acquire task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room, wherein the live streaming room is a live streaming room where the first client, the second client, and the third client stay”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
Regarding Claim 14, in paragraph [0114] of the Specification, it states that “It is noted that the above computer-readable medium in the present disclosure may be a computer-readable signal medium, a computer-readable storage medium, or any combinations of the two. […] In the present disclosure, the computer-readable storage medium may be any visible medium that contains or stores a program, and the program may be used by an instruction executive system, apparatus or device or used in combination with it. In the present disclosure, the computer-readable signal medium may include a data signal propagated in a baseband or as a part of a carrier wave, it carries the computer-readable program code. […] The computer-readable signal medium may also be any computer- readable medium other than the computer-readable storage medium, and the computer-readable signal medium may send, propagate, or transmit the program used by the instruction executive system, apparatus or device or in combination with it.”
However, the Specification merely states that the computer-readable storage medium “may be” a visible medium storing a program, and “may be” different from the computer-readable signal medium, which does not explicitly exclude carrier waves or signals, i.e., limit “computer readable storage medium” as recited in Line 1 of the Claim specifically to non-transitory forms.
As currently written, the claim encompasses transitory propagating signals, such as carrier waves, which are ineligible subject matter. “For example, the BRI of machine-readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se.” (In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). See MPEP 2106.03 (Eligibility Step 1).
Regarding Claim 17, in paragraph [0114] of the Specification, it states that “It is noted that the above computer-readable medium in the present disclosure may be a computer-readable signal medium, a computer-readable storage medium, or any combinations of the two. […] In the present disclosure, the computer-readable storage medium may be any visible medium that contains or stores a program, and the program may be used by an instruction executive system, apparatus or device or used in combination with it. In the present disclosure, the computer-readable signal medium may include a data signal propagated in a baseband or as a part of a carrier wave, it carries the computer-readable program code. […] The computer-readable signal medium may also be any computer- readable medium other than the computer-readable storage medium, and the computer-readable signal medium may send, propagate, or transmit the program used by the instruction executive system, apparatus or device or in combination with it.”
However, the Specification merely states that the computer-readable storage medium “may be” a visible medium storing a program, and “may be” different from the computer-readable signal medium, which does not explicitly exclude carrier waves or signals, i.e., limit “computer readable storage medium” as recited in Line 1 of the Claim specifically to non-transitory forms.
As currently written, the claim encompasses transitory propagating signals, such as carrier waves, which are ineligible subject matter. “For example, the BRI of machine-readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se.” (In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). See MPEP 2106.03 (Eligibility Step 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN113709507A; 2021-11-26) in view of Meng et al. (CN108171160B; 2021-03-23), hereinafter referred to as Zhang and Meng, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang discloses A method for processing a task, comprising: acquiring a task processing factor transmitted by a first client (Page 1- Receiving a video viewing request for a live video of the target category sent by the target terminal, wherein the video viewing request carries the account identifier of the target account; Page 2-Acquiring multiple dimensional data of each live video; For each live video, determine the score corresponding to each dimension data of the live video. Please note that acquiring multiple dimensional data of each live video from a target terminal corresponds to Applicant’s method for task processing comprising acquiring a task processing factor transmitted by a first client. );
generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor (Page 2-Acquiring multiple dimensional data of each live video; For each live video, determine the score corresponding to each dimension data of the live video. For each live video sorting method, based on the score corresponding to each dimensional data and the weight coefficient corresponding to each dimensional data in the live video sorting method, calculate the total score corresponding to each of the multiple live videos. Please note that determining the score corresponding to each dimension data of the live videos and weight coefficients corresponding to each dimensional data in the live video sorting method corresponds to Applicant’s generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor.);
determining task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients (Page 2- For each live video sorting method, based on the score corresponding to each dimensional data and the weight coefficient corresponding to each dimensional data in the live video sorting method, calculate the total score corresponding to each of the multiple live videos. Please note that calculating the total score corresponding to each of the multiple live videos based on the score and weight coefficient corresponding to each dimensional data corresponds to Applicant’s determining task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients.);
Zhang does not explicitly disclose determining a task processing result based on the task processing rule and the task processing data; and transmitting the task processing result to a third client
However, Meng discloses determining a task processing result based on the task processing rule and the task processing data (Page 2- Obtain characteristic data according to the target task data; According to the characteristic data, perform image recognition on the image frame sent by the client to obtain the key image frame; Identify target content data related to the target task data from the key image frame. Please note that identifying target content data related to the target task data according to the characteristic data corresponds to Applicant’s determining a task processing result based on the task processing rule and the task processing data.);
and transmitting the task processing result to a third client (Page 2- After obtaining the completion result of the target task, including: According to the result, the resource corresponding to the target task data is issued to the corresponding audience client. Please note that issuing to the corresponding audience client after obtaining the completion result of the target task corresponds to Applicant’s transmitting the task processing result to a third client.).
Zhang and Meng are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer task processing and results evaluation, with regards to live video. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings Meng of to modify the system acquiring a task processor factor, generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor, and determining task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients to determine a task processing result based on the task processing rule and the task processing data and transmit the task processing result to a third client , allowing for improved efficiency of data processing operations in an automated manner while considering relevant data, as described in Meng.
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang-Meng as described in Claim 1, Zhang further discloses wherein the task processing result comprises a task sorting result (Page 1- Acquire the target sorting method corresponding to the target account when watching the target category of live video, wherein when the target sorting method is used to sort the multiple live videos included in the target category of live video. Please note that the result of the target sorting method corresponds to Applicant’s task processing result comprising a task sorting result.);
the determining a task processing result based on the task processing rule and the task processing data, comprises: determining a task execution result corresponding to each second client based on the task processing rule and task processing data corresponding to each second client (Page 1- Acquire the target sorting method corresponding to the target account when watching the target category of live video, wherein when the target sorting method is used to sort the multiple live videos included in the target category of live video. Please note that acquiring the target sorting method corresponding to the target account when watching the target category of live video, where the sorting method is used to sort the multiple live videos included in the target category of live videos, corresponds to Applicant’s determining a task processing result based on the task processing rule and the task processing data comprising determining a task execution result corresponding to each second client based on the task processing rule and task processing data corresponding to each second client.);
and sorting the task execution results corresponding to the second clients to acquire the task sorting result (Page 1- The multiple live videos are sorted by the target sorting method, and the target live videos whose sorting sequence number is less than a preset sequence number are sent to the target terminal. Please note that sorting the multiple live videos by the target sorting method to be sent corresponds to Applicant’s sorting the task execution results corresponding to the second clients to acquire the task sorting result).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang-Meng as described in Claim 1, Zhang further discloses wherein the task processing factor comprises a plurality of factors, and the generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor, comprises: performing weighted summation on each factor of the task processing factor to generate the task processing rule (Page 2- For each live video sorting method, based on the score corresponding to each dimensional data and the weight coefficient corresponding to each dimensional data in the live video sorting method, calculate the total score corresponding to each of the multiple live videos. Please note that calculating the total score corresponding to each of the multiple live videos based on the score and weight coefficient corresponding to each dimensional data corresponds to Applicant’s task processing factor comprising a plurality of factors, and the generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor comprises performing weighted summation on each factor of the task processing factor to generate the task processing rule).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang-Meng as described in Claim 1, Zhang further discloses the determining task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients, comprises: acquiring a task starting time and a task ending time corresponding to each second client of the plurality of second clients (Page 6-live video has multiple dimensions of data. The multiple dimensions of data may include […] the length of time the user watches the live video […] the configuration coefficient corresponding to the viewing time of the user watching the live video. Please note the data dimension including the length of time the user watches the live video corresponds to Applicant’s determining task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients comprising acquiring a task starting time and a task ending time corresponding to each second client of the plurality of second clients, as it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the length of time the user watched the live video has a start time and an end time, corresponding to the task starting and ending time corresponding to each second client, that is then acquired as part of the dimensions of data.);
and determining the task processing data corresponding to the plurality of second clients based on the task starting time and the task ending time corresponding to each second client (Page 6- In step S1221, multiple dimensional data of each live video is acquired. In this step, data such as like data, viewing time, gift receiving data, and pk information of each live video can be obtained. In step S1222, for each live video, a score corresponding to each dimension data of the live video is determined. Please note that acquiring the multiple dimensional data of each live video, including viewing time of each live video, and then determining a score corresponding to each dimension data of the live video corresponds to Applicant’s determining the task processing data corresponding to the plurality of second clients based on the task starting time and the task ending time corresponding to each second client.).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang-Meng as described in Claim 1, Zhang further discloses after the generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor, further comprising: storing the task processing rule (Page 2-Acquiring multiple dimensional data of each live video; For each live video, determine the score corresponding to each dimension data of the live video. For each live video sorting method, based on the score corresponding to each dimensional data and the weight coefficient corresponding to each dimensional data in the live video sorting method, calculate the total score corresponding to each of the multiple live videos. Please note that it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to store the generated task processing rule, i.e., it is necessary to store the determined score corresponding to each dimension data of the live videos and weight coefficients corresponding to each dimensional data in the live video sorting method in order to perform further processing.);
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang-Meng as described in Claim 2, Zhang further discloses before the generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor, further comprising: determining a target sequence length of the task sorting result (Page 1-The multiple live videos are sorted by the target sorting method, and the target live videos whose sorting sequence number is less than a preset sequence number are sent to the target terminal. Please note that the target sorting method for the live videos, where there is a particular sorting sequence number for target live videos corresponds to Applicant’s, determining a target sequence length of the task sorting result before the generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor.);
wherein the generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor, comprises: generating the task processing rule based on the task processing factor and the target sequence length (Page 2-The video recommendation module is configured to perform the sorting of the multiple live videos by the target sorting method, and send the target live videos whose sorting sequence numbers are less than a preset sequence number to the target terminal. Please note that the video recommendation module performing the sorting of the multiple live videos by the target sorting method, sending the target live videos whose sorting sequence numbers are less than a preset sequence number, corresponds to Applicant’s generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor comprising generating the task processing rule based on the task processing factor and the target sequence length.) .
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang-Meng as described in Claim 1, Zhang further discloses wherein the task is a task for a live streaming room (Page 4- The live broadcast plaza is a scene where different types of live content are displayed, that is to say, in the live broadcast plaza, users can see multiple types of live videos. Please note the live broadcast plaza where users can see live videos corresponds to Applicant’s task being a task for a live streaming room.),
and the determining task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients, comprises: acquiring task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room, wherein the live streaming room is a live streaming room where the first client, the second client, and the third client stay (Page 4- The live broadcast plaza is a scene where different types of live content are displayed, that is to say, in the live broadcast plaza, users can see multiple types of live videos.; Page 6-live video has multiple dimensions of data. The multiple dimensions of data may include the like data of the live video, the length of time the user watches the live video, the gift receiving data of the live video, and the pk of the live video. Information and so on. The multiple-dimensional data of the live video may be determined according to actual conditions, and the embodiment of the present disclosure does not specifically limit the multiple-dimensional data. Please note the live broadcast plaza where users can see live videos, and where multiple dimensions of data relating to the users and the live videos being broadcast corresponds to Applicant’s determining task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients, comprising acquiring task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room, wherein the live streaming room is a live streaming room where the first client, the second client, and the third client stay. This is because the live broadcast plaza, corresponding to the live streaming room, allows for multiple users, corresponding to the first, second, and third clients, to view live videos, i.e., stay, and have data relating to them be acquired. );
and determining the task processing data corresponding to the plurality of second clients based on the task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room, and a task starting time and a task ending time corresponding to each second client (Page 6-live video has multiple dimensions of data. The multiple dimensions of data may include […] the length of time the user watches the live video […] the configuration coefficient corresponding to the viewing time of the user watching the live video. Please note the data dimension including the length of time the user watches the live video corresponds to Applicant’s determining the task processing data corresponding to the plurality of second clients based on the task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room, and a task starting time and a task ending time corresponding to each second client, as it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the length of time the user watched the live video has a start time and an end time, corresponding to the task starting and ending time corresponding to each second client, that is then acquired as part of the dimensions of data.).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang-Meng as described in Claim 7, Zhang further discloses wherein the task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room comprises a plurality of live streaming points and corresponding task processing data, and the plurality of live streaming points comprise a task starting point and a task ending point corresponding to each second client (Page 6-live video has multiple dimensions of data. The multiple dimensions of data may include […] the length of time the user watches the live video […] the configuration coefficient corresponding to the viewing time of the user watching the live video. Please note the data dimension including the length of time the user watches the live video corresponds to Applicant’s task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room comprises a plurality of live streaming points and corresponding task processing data, and the plurality of live streaming points comprise a task starting point and a task ending point corresponding to each second client, as it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the length of time the user watched each live video, i.e., each live streaming point and its corresponding task processing data, has a start time and an end time, corresponding to the task starting and ending points corresponding to each second client, that is then acquired as part of the dimensions of data.);
the determining the task processing data corresponding to the plurality of second clients based on the task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room, and a task starting time and a task ending time corresponding to each second client, comprises: determining task processing data corresponding to the task ending point and task processing data corresponding to the task starting point based on the plurality of live streaming points and the corresponding task processing data (Page 6- In step S1221, multiple dimensional data of each live video is acquired. In this step, data such as like data, viewing time, gift receiving data, and pk information of each live video can be obtained. In step S1222, for each live video, a score corresponding to each dimension data of the live video is determined. Please note that acquiring the multiple dimensional data of each live video, including viewing time of each live video, and then determining a score corresponding to each dimension data of the live video corresponds to Applicant’s determining the task processing data corresponding to the plurality of second clients based on the task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room, and a task starting time and a task ending time corresponding to each second client, comprising: determining task processing data corresponding to the task ending point and task processing data corresponding to the task starting point based on the plurality of live streaming points and the corresponding task processing data. This is because for each live video, i.e., each of the plurality of live streaming points, the corresponding dimensional data, including viewing time, which has a start and end time, are considered in the determination of the score.);
and for each second client, determining a difference value between the task processing data corresponding to the task ending point and the task processing data corresponding to the task starting point as the task processing data (Page 6-live video has multiple dimensions of data. The multiple dimensions of data may include […] the length of time the user watches the live video […] the configuration coefficient corresponding to the viewing time of the user watching the live video.; Page 6- Step 1. For each dimensional data, calculate the average value of the dimensional data of multiple live videos. Step 2: For each dimensional data of each live video, determine the score corresponding to the dimensional data based on the difference between the dimensional data and the average value corresponding to the dimensional data. In this embodiment, when determining the score corresponding to each dimensional data, the average value of the dimensional data of multiple live videos can be calculated. For each dimensional data of each live video, the dimensional data can be compared with the dimensional data. The average value corresponding to the data is different. For example, if the difference is greater than 0, it can be determined that the score corresponding to the dimensional data is 10 points; if the difference is less than or equal to 0, it can be determined that the score corresponding to the dimensional data is 0. Of course, you can also set the difference gradient to determine the score corresponding to the dimension data. Please note that comparing the difference for each dimensional data of each live video corresponds to Applicant’s determining a difference value between the task processing data corresponding to the task ending point and the task processing data corresponding to the task starting point as the task processing data for each second client. Additionally, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, the length of time a user watches a live video may also be considered as a difference value between the starting point and ending point of the task, i.e., the data from the period in between the two points could be considered as a difference value.).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang discloses A method for processing a task, applied to a first client, comprising: (Page 1- Receiving a video viewing request for a live video of the target category sent by the target terminal, wherein the video viewing request carries the account identifier of the target account. Please note that receiving a video viewing request for a live video of the target category sent by the target terminal corresponds to Applicant’s method for processing a task, applied to a first client.)
Zhang does not explicitly disclose displaying a task setting interface; and in response to a task processing factor setting operation on the task setting interface, transmitting the task processing factor to a server to make the server generate a task processing rule based on the task processing factor, determine a task processing result based on the task processing rule and task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients, and transmit the task processing result to a third client and a first transmission module, configured to transmit the task processing result to a third client.
However, Meng discloses displaying a task setting interface (Page 5-the interfaces of the first audience client 211. Please note that the interface of the first audience client 211 corresponds to Applicant’s displaying a task setting interface.);
and in response to a task processing factor setting operation on the task setting interface, transmitting the task processing factor to a server to make the server generate a task processing rule based on the task processing factor (Page 6, For example, when the target task is displayed on the interface of the host client, a "select" control can be displayed. When the host clicks on the "select" control, an instruction is sent to the server. After receiving the instruction, the server sends the target task data. Please note that the select control being displayed on the interface of the host client for the target task, where the host can click on the select control to send an instruction to the server, causing the server to send the target task data, corresponds to Applicant’s transmitting the task processing factor to a server to make the server generate a task processing rule based on the task processing factor in response to a task processing factor setting operation on the task setting interface),
determine a task processing result based on the task processing rule and task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients (Page 2- Obtain characteristic data according to the target task data; According to the characteristic data, perform image recognition on the image frame sent by the client to obtain the key image frame; Identify target content data related to the target task data from the key image frame. Please note that identifying target content data related to the target task data according to the characteristic data corresponds to Applicant’s determine a task processing result based on the task processing rule and task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients.),
and transmit the task processing result to a third client and a first transmission module, configured to transmit the task processing result to a third client (Page 2- After obtaining the completion result of the target task, including: According to the result, the resource corresponding to the target task data is issued to the corresponding audience client. Please note that issuing to the corresponding audience client after obtaining the completion result of the target task corresponds to Applicant’s transmitting the task processing result to a third client and a first transmission module, configured to transmit the task processing result to a third client, where the transmission module is the means by which the target task data is issued in the system. ).
Zhang and Meng are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer task processing and results evaluation, with regards to live video. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings Meng of to modify the system with a method for processing a task, applied to a first client, to display a task setting interface, transmit the task processing factor to a server to make the server generate a task processing rule based on the task processing factor in response to a task processing factor setting operation on the task setting interface, determine a task processing result based on the task processing rule and task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients, and transmit the task processing result to a third client and a first transmission module configured to transmit the task processing result to a third client, allowing for improved efficiency of data processing operations in an automated manner while considering relevant data, as described in Meng.
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang discloses A device for processing a task, comprising: an acquisition module, configured to acquire a task processing factor transmitted by a first client (Page 1- Receiving a video viewing request for a live video of the target category sent by the target terminal, wherein the video viewing request carries the account identifier of the target account; Page 2-Acquiring multiple dimensional data of each live video; For each live video, determine the score corresponding to each dimension data of the live video. Please note that acquiring multiple dimensional data of each live video from a target terminal corresponds to Applicant’s device for processing a task, comprising: an acquisition module, configured to acquire a task processing factor transmitted by a first client .);
a rule generation module, configured to generate a task processing rule based on the task processing factor (Page 2-Acquiring multiple dimensional data of each live video; For each live video, determine the score corresponding to each dimension data of the live video. For each live video sorting method, based on the score corresponding to each dimensional data and the weight coefficient corresponding to each dimensional data in the live video sorting method, calculate the total score corresponding to each of the multiple live videos. Please note that determining the score corresponding to each dimension data of the live videos and weight coefficients corresponding to each dimensional data in the live video sorting method corresponds to Applicant’s rule generation module, configured to generate a task processing rule based on the task processing factor.);
a data determination module, configured to determine task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients (Page 2- For each live video sorting method, based on the score corresponding to each dimensional data and the weight coefficient corresponding to each dimensional data in the live video sorting method, calculate the total score corresponding to each of the multiple live videos. Please note that calculating the total score corresponding to each of the multiple live videos based on the score and weight coefficient corresponding to each dimensional data corresponds to Applicant’s data determination module, configured to determine task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients.);
Zhang does not explicitly disclose a result determination module, configured to determine a task processing result based on the task processing rule and the task processing data;
and a first transmission module, configured to transmit the task processing result to a third client
However, Meng discloses a result determination module, configured to determine a task processing result based on the task processing rule and the task processing data (Page 2- Obtain characteristic data according to the target task data; According to the characteristic data, perform image recognition on the image frame sent by the client to obtain the key image frame; Identify target content data related to the target task data from the key image frame. Please note that identifying target content data related to the target task data according to the characteristic data corresponds to Applicant’s result determination module configured to determine a task processing result based on the task processing rule and the task processing data.);
and a first transmission module, configured to transmit the task processing result to a third client (Page 2- After obtaining the completion result of the target task, including: According to the result, the resource corresponding to the target task data is issued to the corresponding audience client Please note that issuing to the corresponding audience client after obtaining the completion result of the target task corresponds to Applicant’s first transmission module configured to transmit the task processing result to a third client. ).
Zhang and Meng are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer task processing and results evaluation, with regards to live video. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings Meng of to modify the system with an acquisition module acquiring a task processor factor, a rule generation module generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor, and a data determination module determining task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients to have a result determination module to determine a task processing result based on the task processing rule and the task processing data and a first transmission module to transmit the task processing result to a third client , allowing for improved efficiency of data processing operations in an automated manner while considering relevant data, as described in Meng.
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang-Meng as described in Claim 1 discloses perform the method for processing a task according to claim 1.
Zhang further discloses An electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer executable instructions; and the processor executes the computer executable instructions stored on the memory, causing the processor to (Page 5- Fig. 6 is a block diagram showing a device 600 for displaying groups according to an exemplary embodiment. For example, the device 600 may be provided as a server. 6, the apparatus 600 includes a processing component 622, which further includes one or more processors, and a memory resource represented by a memory 632, for storing instructions that can be executed by the processing component 622, such as application programs. The application program stored in the memory 632 may include one or more modules each corresponding to a set of instructions. In addition, the processing component 622 is configured to execute instructions to execute the video display method of the third aspect. Please note that the device 600 for displaying groups, which includes a processing component 622 which includes processors, and a memory resource storing instructions that can be executed by the processing component, and executing instructions to execute the video display method corresponds to Applicant’s electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer executable instructions; and the processor executes the computer executable instructions stored on the memory, causing the processor to perform operations.)
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang-Meng as described in Claim 9 discloses perform the method for processing a task according to claim 9.
Zhang further discloses An electronic device, comprising a display, a processor, and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer executable instructions, the display is connected to the processor and configured to display a task setting interface; and the processor executes the computer executable instructions stored on the memory, causing the processor to (Page 5- Fig. 6 is a block diagram showing a device 600 for displaying groups according to an exemplary embodiment. For example, the device 600 may be provided as a server. 6, the apparatus 600 includes a processing component 622, which further includes one or more processors, and a memory resource represented by a memory 632, for storing instructions that can be executed by the processing component 622, such as application programs. The application program stored in the memory 632 may include one or more modules each corresponding to a set of instructions. In addition, the processing component 622 is configured to execute instructions to execute the video display method of the third aspect. Please note that the device 600 for displaying groups, which includes a processing component 622 which includes processors, and a memory resource storing instructions that can be executed by the processing component, and executing instructions to execute the video display method corresponds to Applicant’s electronic device, comprising a display, a processor, and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer executable instructions, the display is connected to the processor and configured to display a task setting interface; and the processor executes the computer executable instructions stored on the memory, causing the processor to perform operations.)
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang-Meng as described in Claim 1 discloses implement the method for processing a task according to claim 1
Zhang further discloses A computer readable storage medium, wherein computer executable instructions are stored in the computer readable storage medium, and the computer executable instructions, when executed by a processor (Page 5- Fig. 6 is a block diagram showing a device 600 for displaying groups according to an exemplary embodiment. For example, the device 600 may be provided as a server. 6, the apparatus 600 includes a processing component 622, which further includes one or more processors, and a memory resource represented by a memory 632, for storing instructions that can be executed by the processing component 622, such as application programs. The application program stored in the memory 632 may include one or more modules each corresponding to a set of instructions. In addition, the processing component 622 is configured to execute instructions to execute the video display method of the third aspect. Please note that the device 600 for displaying groups, which includes a processing component 622 which includes processors, and a memory resource storing instructions that can be executed by the processing component including application programs stored in the memory 632 including modules each corresponding to a set of instructions corresponds to Applicant’s computer readable storage medium, wherein computer executable instructions are stored in the computer readable storage medium, and the computer executable instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations.),
Regarding Claim 17, Zhang-Meng as described in Claim 9 discloses implement the method for processing a task according to claim 9
Zhang further discloses A computer readable storage medium, wherein computer executable instructions are stored in the computer readable storage medium, and the computer executable instructions, when executed by a processor (Page 5- Fig. 6 is a block diagram showing a device 600 for displaying groups according to an exemplary embodiment. For example, the device 600 may be provided as a server. 6, the apparatus 600 includes a processing component 622, which further includes one or more processors, and a memory resource represented by a memory 632, for storing instructions that can be executed by the processing component 622, such as application programs. The application program stored in the memory 632 may include one or more modules each corresponding to a set of instructions. In addition, the processing component 622 is configured to execute instructions to execute the video display method of the third aspect. Please note that the device 600 for displaying groups, which includes a processing component 622 which includes processors, and a memory resource storing instructions that can be executed by the processing component including application programs stored in the memory 632 including modules each corresponding to a set of instructions corresponds to Applicant’s computer readable storage medium, wherein computer executable instructions are stored in the computer readable storage medium, and the computer executable instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations.),
Regarding Claim 18, Zhang-Meng as described in Claim 10, Zhang further discloses wherein the task processing result comprises a task sorting result (Page 1- Acquire the target sorting method corresponding to the target account when watching the target category of live video, wherein when the target sorting method is used to sort the multiple live videos included in the target category of live video. Please note that the result of the target sorting method corresponds to Applicant’s task processing result comprising a task sorting result.);
the result determination module is further configured to determine a task execution result corresponding to each second client based on the task processing rule and task processing data corresponding to each second client (Page 1- Acquire the target sorting method corresponding to the target account when watching the target category of live video, wherein when the target sorting method is used to sort the multiple live videos included in the target category of live video. Please note that acquiring the target sorting method corresponding to the target account when watching the target category of live video, where the sorting method is used to sort the multiple live videos included in the target category of live videos, corresponds to Applicant’s result determination module being further configured to determine a task execution result based on the task processing rule and the task processing data corresponding to each second client.);
and sort the task execution results corresponding to the second clients to acquire the task sorting result (Page 1- The multiple live videos are sorted by the target sorting method, and the target live videos whose sorting sequence number is less than a preset sequence number are sent to the target terminal. Please note that sorting the multiple live videos by the target sorting method to be sent corresponds to Applicant’s sorting the task execution results corresponding to the second clients to acquire the task sorting result).
Regarding Claim 19, Zhang-Meng as described in Claim 10, Zhang further discloses wherein the task processing factor comprises a plurality of factors, and the rule generation module is further configured to: perform weighted summation on each factor of the task processing factor to generate the task processing rule (Page 2- For each live video sorting method, based on the score corresponding to each dimensional data and the weight coefficient corresponding to each dimensional data in the live video sorting method, calculate the total score corresponding to each of the multiple live videos. Please note that calculating the total score corresponding to each of the multiple live videos based on the score and weight coefficient corresponding to each dimensional data corresponds to Applicant’s task processing factor comprising a plurality of factors, and the generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor comprises performing weighted summation on each factor of the task processing factor to generate the task processing rule).
Regarding Claim 20, Zhang-Meng as described in Claim 10, Zhang further discloses the data determination module is further configured to: acquire a task starting time and a task ending time corresponding to each second client of the plurality of second clients (Page 6-live video has multiple dimensions of data. The multiple dimensions of data may include […] the length of time the user watches the live video […] the configuration coefficient corresponding to the viewing time of the user watching the live video. Please note the data dimension including the length of time the user watches the live video corresponds to Applicant’s determining task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients comprising acquiring a task starting time and a task ending time corresponding to each second client of the plurality of second clients, as it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the length of time the user watched the live video has a start time and an end time, corresponding to the task starting and ending time corresponding to each second client, that is then acquired as part of the dimensions of data.);
and determine the task processing data corresponding to the plurality of second clients based on the task starting time and the task ending time corresponding to each second client (Page 6- In step S1221, multiple dimensional data of each live video is acquired. In this step, data such as like data, viewing time, gift receiving data, and pk information of each live video can be obtained. In step S1222, for each live video, a score corresponding to each dimension data of the live video is determined. Please note that acquiring the multiple dimensional data of each live video, including viewing time of each live video, and then determining a score corresponding to each dimension data of the live video corresponds to Applicant’s determining the task processing data corresponding to the plurality of second clients based on the task starting time and the task ending time corresponding to each second client.).
Regarding Claim 21, Zhang-Meng as described in Claim 10, Zhang further discloses further comprising: a storage module, configured to store the task processing rule (Page 2-Acquiring multiple dimensional data of each live video; For each live video, determine the score corresponding to each dimension data of the live video. For each live video sorting method, based on the score corresponding to each dimensional data and the weight coefficient corresponding to each dimensional data in the live video sorting method, calculate the total score corresponding to each of the multiple live videos. Please note that it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to store the generated task processing rule via a storage module, i.e., it is necessary to store the determined score corresponding to each dimension data of the live videos and weight coefficients corresponding to each dimensional data in the live video sorting method in order to perform further processing.);
Regarding Claim 22, Zhang-Meng as described in Claim 18, Zhang further discloses a sequence length determination module, configured to determine a target sequence length of the task ranking result (Page 1-The multiple live videos are sorted by the target sorting method, and the target live videos whose sorting sequence number is less than a preset sequence number are sent to the target terminal. Please note that the target sorting method for the live videos, where there is a particular sorting sequence number for target live videos corresponds to Applicant’s sequence length determination module configured to determine a target sequence length of the task ranking result before the generating a task processing rule based on the task processing factor.);
wherein the rule generation module is further configured to generate the task processing rule based on the task processing factor and the target sequence length (Page 2-The video recommendation module is configured to perform the sorting of the multiple live videos by the target sorting method, and send the target live videos whose sorting sequence numbers are less than a preset sequence number to the target terminal. Please note that the video recommendation module performing the sorting of the multiple live videos by the target sorting method, sending the target live videos whose sorting sequence numbers are less than a preset sequence number, corresponds to Applicant’s rule generation module being further configured to generate a task processing rule based on the task processing factor and the target sequence length.) .
Regarding Claim 23, Zhang-Meng as described in Claim 10, Zhang further discloses wherein the task is a task for a live streaming room (Page 4- The live broadcast plaza is a scene where different types of live content are displayed, that is to say, in the live broadcast plaza, users can see multiple types of live videos. Please note the live broadcast plaza where users can see live videos corresponds to Applicant’s task being a task for a live streaming room.),
and the data determination module is further configured to: acquire task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room, wherein the live streaming room is a live streaming room where the first client, the second client, and the third client stay (Page 4- The live broadcast plaza is a scene where different types of live content are displayed, that is to say, in the live broadcast plaza, users can see multiple types of live videos.; Page 6-live video has multiple dimensions of data. The multiple dimensions of data may include the like data of the live video, the length of time the user watches the live video, the gift receiving data of the live video, and the pk of the live video. Information and so on. The multiple-dimensional data of the live video may be determined according to actual conditions, and the embodiment of the present disclosure does not specifically limit the multiple-dimensional data. Please note the live broadcast plaza where users can see live videos, and where multiple dimensions of data relating to the users and the live videos being broadcast corresponds to Applicant’s determining task processing data corresponding to a plurality of second clients, comprising acquiring task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room, wherein the live streaming room is a live streaming room where the first client, the second client, and the third client stay. This is because the live broadcast plaza, corresponding to the live streaming room, allows for multiple users, corresponding to the first, second, and third clients, to view live videos, i.e., stay, and have data relating to them be acquired. );
and determine the task processing data corresponding to the plurality of second clients based on the task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room, and a task starting time and a task ending time corresponding to each second client (Page 6-live video has multiple dimensions of data. The multiple dimensions of data may include […] the length of time the user watches the live video […] the configuration coefficient corresponding to the viewing time of the user watching the live video. Please note the data dimension including the length of time the user watches the live video corresponds to Applicant’s determining the task processing data corresponding to the plurality of second clients based on the task processing data corresponding to the live streaming room, and a task starting time and a task ending time corresponding to each second client, as it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the length of time the user watched the live video has a start time and an end time, corresponding to the task starting and ending time corresponding to each second client, that is then acquired as part of the dimensions of data.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. (CN108062409A; 2018-05-22) discloses obtaining durations of live streams, performing a summation of the obtained durations, implementing a selection rule, and sorting the highlighted segments (see Pages 1-5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAZ T AKBARI whose telephone number is (571)272-4166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30am-7:30pm 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, April Blair can be reached at (571)270-1014. 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.
/FARAZ T AKBARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights