Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are the multiple instances of “A/The intermediate media service” in claims 12-14, 16-18, and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The intermediate media service is disclosed to be incorporated within a single system with the media service in Paragraph 0029 of Applicant’s originally filed specification. Furthermore, Paragraph 0021 discloses the media service to operate on a server, thereby tying the intermediate media service to operate on a server. The functions of claims 12-14, 16-18, and 20 are considered to have sufficient algorithms disclosing sufficient details on how these functions are achieved on the structure provided by the specification. Therefore, the “intermediate media service” is deemed to not be indefinite. See MPEP 2181(II)(B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10, 12, 14-15, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al (hereinafter Jeon) US 20180160179 in view of Sekar et al (hereinafter Sekar) US 20190289359.
Referring to claim 1, Jeon discloses a method comprising:
receiving a media request for requested media, the media request received from an input device (see Paragraph 0012-0013 for disclosing receiving a media/video content request/selection for requested media/the selected video content, the video content selection received from an input device/mobile device);
providing the media request to a media service to serve the requested media to a requested device (see Paragraph 0012-0013 for disclosing the providing of the video content selection to a media service/video content server to serve the selected video content to a requested device/television display device);
accessing intermediate media including one or more images related to the video content selection (see Paragraphs 0016, 0022, 0033); and
delivering the intermediate media to the requested device (see Paragraph 0016).
Jeon is unclear as to processing the media request to identify attributes of the media request indicative of a subject matter of the requested media and based on the identified attributes of the media request, accessing media related to the identified attributes.
Sekar discloses processing the media request to identify attributes of the media request indicative of a subject matter of the requested media and based on the identified attributes of the media request, accessing media related to the identified attributes (see Paragraphs 0053-0056 for disclosing processing the media request/play request for video “ABC” to identify attributes/content data attributes of the video indicative of the subject matter within video ABC, and accessing media related to the identified content data attributes (e.g., images for actors appearing in video ABC)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the attribute identification of Sekar with the system of Jeon in order to provides an extensive video searching and playback capabilities based on the actors who appear in a video. Such capabilities can allow improved user interaction with the user equipment and the content source. Aside from an improved user experience, the operation of some or all of the user equipment, content source and the communications network may be improved or made more efficient by the described method and system as fewer user initiated searches may be required to access the information that is desired by the user, thereby enabling more efficient use of system resources (see Sekar Paragraph 0063).
Referring to claim 2, Jeon discloses delivering the intermediate media to the required device in an interim period before the requested media is served to the requested device (see Paragraphs 0016 and 0033).
Referring to claim 5, Jeon discloses accessing the intermediate media includes retrieving pre-existing images from an image repository, the pre-existing images corresponding to the selected video content (see Paragraphs 0016, 0022, and 0043 for disclosing the intermediate media includes retrieving pre-existing images from an image repository/data storage, the pre-existing images corresponding to the selected video content). Sekar discloses media/image corresponding to identified attributes as seen in the rejection of claim 1.
Referring to claim 6, Jeon discloses the image repository includes images representing the selected video content (see Paragraphs 0016, 0022, and 0033). Sekar discloses thumbnails, static images, or graphics that represent video content can capture a person as seen in the rejection of claim 1.
Referring to claim 10, Jeon discloses delivering the one or more images included in the intermediate media in a repeatable loop of the one image (see Paragraph 0016 for disclosing the delivered image is displayed until the video content has begun to display (i.e., a single image being displayed for the duration while waiting for the video to begin is equivalent to a single image being delivered/displayed)).
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1, further noting.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
Claims 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al (hereinafter Jeon) US 20180160179 in view of Sekar et al (hereinafter Sekar) US 20190289359, and further in view of Miller et al (hereinafter Miller) US 20250139160.
Referring to claim 7, Jeon in view of Sekar discloses accessing the intermediate media related to the identified attributes as seen in the rejection of claim 1.
Jeon in view of Sekar is unclear as to formulating a query based on the identified attributes of the media request to be presented to a generative media processing system to produce one or more generated images.
Miller discloses formulating a query based on the identified attributes of the media request (see Paragraphs 0035-0038 for disclosing a query to find content is formulated based on identified attributes (e.g., desired genre and/or content type (e.g., romantic comedy, drama, action thriller, fantasy, science fiction, documentary, foreign language, movie, series, art films, award winning films, bad movies, etc.), actor, length, release date range, newest, content similar to another item of content identified by the user (e.g., “Do you have anything like Star Wars?”), and/or other content specification) of the media request by the user) to be presented to a generative media processing system to produce one or more generated images (see Paragraphs 0115-0122 and 0166 for disclosing the query is presented to a generative media processing system to produce generated images).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the queries of Miller with the system of Jeon in view of Sekar in order to provide dynamic content and to provide a mechanism to efficiently search for and identify content of interest in large libraries of content (see Miller, Paragraph 0003).
Referring to claim 8, Miller discloses formulating the query includes at least one of joining together one or more of the identified attributes into a terms-based query (see Paragraphs 0038 and 0166 for disclosing formulating the query includes joining together identified attributes (e.g., movie themes) into a terms-based query (a query is formed for “sad or scary” content, “sad” and “scary” being the movie theme attributes identified from the media request).
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al (hereinafter Jeon) US 20180160179 in view of Sekar et al (hereinafter Sekar) US 20190289359, further in view of Miller et al (hereinafter Miller) US 20250139160, and further in view of Arbel US 20250193464.
Referring to claim 9, Jeon discloses providing an initial image of the generated image during an interval as seen in the rejection of claim 1.
Jeon in view of Sekar, and further in view of Miller is unclear as to an interval including a time during which one or more additional images of the one or more generated images are being produced.
Arbel discloses an initial image is provided during an interval of time during which one or more additional images of one or more generated images are being produced (see Paragraph 0041 for disclosing displaying initial images during a time period which additional images are being generated/loaded for production/rendering).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the known technique of displaying initial images while additional images are being produced of Arbel with the known system of Jeon in view of Sekar, and further in view of Miller in order to achieve the predictable result of displaying images that are ready to be displayed while other images are not ready yet are being processed, thereby avoiding a display of no images to the user (similar to the avoidance of displaying only a dark screen, seen in cited sections of Jeon).
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 11, 13, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Panchaksharaiah et al US 11432047 for disclosing requesting metadata for identified media assets of segments of a video from a database.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS T CORBO whose telephone number is (571)270-5675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS T CORBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
02/03/2026