Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 11/19/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination, the rejection cited as stated below.
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
3. Claims 1, 11, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18928108 (of the claim set dated 7/16/2025, hereafter “Application’108”).
As to claim 1, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of the independent claim 1 of the instant application are claimed in claim 8 of the co-pending Application ‘108, i.e., claim 8 of the co-pending Application‘108 is more specific. Thus the invention of claim 8 of the copending Application’108 in effect a "species" of the "generic" invention of claim 1 of the instant application. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Specifically, Application’108 discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by an application, a request from a user, the request corresponding to a frame of a video of an event (Claim 8’s Parent Claim 1, “receiving, by the device, during the rendering of the video, input from a second device, the input comprising a request to capture a frame of the video, the frame of the video corresponding to a time proximate to a time the input is received”);
analyzing, by the application, the frame of the video based on user data associated with the user (Claim 8’s Parent Claim 1, “identifying, by the device, based on the determination, user data for the user; analyzing, by the device, upon determining that the user is currently viewing the display, the frame of the video based on the user data associated with the user”);
determining, by the application, based on analysis of the frame, entity information, the entity information corresponding to an entity digitally depicted within the frame of the video (Claim 8’s Parent Claim 1, “determining, by the device, based on the analysis, entity information, the entity information corresponding to a category of entities digitally depicted within the frame of the video”);
searching, by the application, based on the entity information, social media content available over a network (Claim 8’s Parent Claim 1,”retrieving, by the device, over a network, content related to the entity information” wherein the retrieving step indicates a type of searching. Also see Claim 8, “searching, based on the user data, a collection of social media videos, each social media video comprising tags that correspond to particular products depicted therein; analyzing the collection based on the entity information”);
determining, by the application, based on the search of media content, a social media file that includes information related to the entity information (Claim 8, “searching, based on the user data, a collection of social media videos, each social media video comprising tags that correspond to particular products depicted therein; analyzing the collection based on the entity information; identifying a social media video that corresponds to the entity information, such that the social media video is provided as part of the output communicated to the account of the user”); and
communicating, by the application, in response to the request, the media file (Claim 8’s Parent Claim 1, “communicating, by the device, to an account of the user, an output comprising the entity information and related retrieved content”; Claim 8, “identifying a social media video that corresponds to the entity information, such that the social media video is provided as part of the output communicated to the account of the user”),
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 1.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
4. Claims 2-5, 7-8, 12-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’108, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fredinburg et al (US 9098584).
As to claim 2, Application’08 discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, further comprising: identifying, based on the search, a social media file that comprises digital content related to the entity information (Claim 8, “searching, based on the user data, a collection of social media videos, each social media video comprising tags that correspond to particular products depicted therein; analyzing the collection based on the entity information; and identifying a social media video that corresponds to the entity information, such that the social media video is provided as part of the output communicated to the account of the user”),
but does not expressly disclose that a set of social media files are identified, or analyzing data related to each of the set of social media files and determining a ranking of the social media files within the set of social media files based on the analysis of the data. Fredinburg discloses that a set of social media files are identified, and analyzing data related to each of the set of social media files and determining a ranking of the social media files within the set of social media files based on the analysis of the data (Fredinburg, col. 20, lines 30-50, “In some embodiments, the requester can identify certain information from the database of person-specific data 964 as being more important than other information from the database of person-specific data 964. For example, the requester might specify that information concerning the industry in which a person works be given higher weight than other person-specific data, because the requester is attending a 13. work-related function and thus query images are likely to include facial images of other people working in the same industry as the requester”. See also Fig. 13, “Value and weight” and col. 20, line 45 to col. 21, line 2, “These derived characteristics include one or more of (and typically two or more of): indoor habitat factor 1832, an outdoor habitat factor 1834, a glasses factor 1840, a facial hair factor 1842, a head hair factor 1844, a headwear factor 1846, clothing factor 1847, an eye color factor 1848, as well as occurrences information regarding an amount of occurrences of the respective person in the one or more image sources 1850…. Each derived characteristic 1830, derived from other images of a respective person, is given a value and a weight which is used in determining the ranking score for a respective person when that derived characteristic is used”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’108 and Fredinburg. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to give priority to more important factors (Fredinburg, col. 20, lines 30-50 and col. 20, line 45 to col. 21, line 2).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Application’108 in view of Fredinburg discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: determining a weight of each of the set of social media files based on the analysis of the data (Fredinburg, see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 3 as set forth below); and performing the ranking based on the determined weight of each of the set of social media files (Fredinburg, see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 3 as set forth below).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Application’108 in view of Fredinburg discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising the weight corresponding an indication within each of the set of social media files selected from a group consisting of: reviews, feedback, a manner of display of the entity within a respective social media file, source of the respective social media file, engagement metrics and attribution information (Fredinburg, see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 4 as set forth below).
As to claim 5, Application’108 in view of Fredinburg discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising selecting a highest ranked social media file, such that the determined social media file is based on the selection (Fredinburg, see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 5 as set forth below).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 7, Application’108 in view of Fredinburg discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising the social media content being tagged social media posts (Application’108, Claim 8, “each social media video comprising tags that correspond to particular products depicted therein”), wherein the search comprises analyzing tags of each social media post (Fredinburg, see citation in the 103 rejection to claim 7 as set forth below).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Application’108 in view of Fredinburg discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: compiling an output based on the entity information and the social media file, wherein the communication comprises the output (Application’108, Claim 8, “analyzing the collection based on the entity information; and identifying a social media video that corresponds to the entity information, such that the social media video is provided as part of the output communicated to the account of the user”).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 8.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
5. Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’108, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wong (US 2011/0282906).
As to claim 9, Application’108 discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1. Application’108 further discloses that the video of the event being a broadcast of the event that the user is currently viewing (Claim 8’s Parent Claim 1, “rendering, by a device, a video, the video corresponding to a program broadcast over a network, the video being viewed by a user at a location”), but does not expressly disclose that the broadcast is a live broadcast. Wong discloses a video of an event being a live broadcast of the event that a user is currently viewing (Wong, see [0022], "The term multimedia is defined herein as media and content that utilizes at least two different content forms, such as text, audio, still images, animation, video, and interactivity content forms. Multimedia content may be recorded and played, displayed, or accessed by information content processing devices, such as computerized and electronic devices, but may also be part of a live performance. It should be understood that the invention embodiments that are described in relation to media or media content are also applicable to other types of content, such as video, audio and/or multimedia", disclosing that the "media content" as described in Wong can be "multimedia" comprising "video" of a "live performance"; [0080], “An illustrative image-based media content search performed using the present invention is shown in FIGS. 6A-C. While viewing media content, a user may wish to perform a search related to the media content. The desired search may be to identify an actor, identify a movie or show, identify an object on screen”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’108 with Wong. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to enable user to search live event videos (Wong, [0022]; [0080]).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
6. Claims 6 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’108, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eastes (US 2025/0238465).
As to claim 6, Application’108 discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, including analyzing, upon the search, the social media content; and determining the social media file based on the analysis, the determination based on a context of digital content included within the social media file (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Claim 8),
but does not expressly disclose that the analyzing the social media content is via a large language model (LLM) or that the determining of the social media file is based on the LLM-based analysis. Eastes discloses analyzing media content via a large language model (LLM) and determining media file based on the LLM-based analysis ([0005], “the disclosed systems utilize machine learning models to extract text and/or use a large language model to generate text versions of snapshots including extracted text, descriptions of images, transcripts of videos, and/or textual summaries from displayed documents or webpages. In response to a search query, the disclosed systems can produce search results that include digital videos including captured snapshots of content displayed by a client device over time”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’108 with Eastes. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to utilizes specialized machine learning to enable searching the images/snapshots (Eastes, [0005]).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 6.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
7. Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’108, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Becherer et al (US 2014/0089295).
As to claim 10, Application’108 discloses the claimed invention substantially including the request corresponding to a frame from the video (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Claim 8’s Parent Claim 1, “rendering, by a device, a video, the video corresponding to a program broadcast over a network, the video being viewed by a user at a location; receiving, by the device, during the rendering of the video, input from a second device, the input comprising a request to capture a frame of the video”), but does not expressly disclose a set of frames/snapshots. Becherer discloses a single search corresponding to a set of frames/snapshots from a video ([0028], “a user may take multiple snapshots to be used for a single search for an image”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’108 with Becherer. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to combine multiple snapshots in a single search (Becherer, [0028]).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
---------------------
8. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14 and 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 18951920 (of the claim set dated 11/19/2024, hereafter “Application’920”) in view of Wong (US 2011/0282906) and Fredinburg et al (US 9098584).
As to claim 1, Application’920 discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by an application, a request from a user, the request corresponding to a frame of a video of an event (Claim 7’s Parent Claim 1, “receiving, by the application, during the rendering of the video, a request from a user related to at least one frame of the video”);
determining, by the application, based on analysis of the frame, entity information, the entity information corresponding to an entity associated with the frame of the video (Claim 7, “the request comprising an indication of entity information, wherein the communicated output further comprises information related to the entity information as related to the identified at least one frame”);
searching, by the application, based on the entity information, media content available over a network (Claim 7, “the request comprising an indication of entity information, wherein the communicated output further comprises information related to the entity information as related to the identified at least one frame”; Claim 7’s Parent Claim 1, “searching, by the application, based on the request, a repository of video content, the video content in the repository corresponding to a plurality of live events occurring at a time proximate to the live event”, wherein the application and the repository constitute a network. It is to be noted that the claim does not require a specific type of network);
determining, by the application, based on the search of media content, a media file that includes information related to the entity information (Claim 7’s Parent Claim 1, “identifying, by the application, based on the search, the at least one frame from the video content within the repository”; Claim 7, “the request comprising an indication of entity information, wherein the communicated output further comprises information related to the entity information as related to the identified at least one frame”); and
communicating, by the application, in response to the request, the media file (“Claim 7’s Parent Claim 1, “communicating, by the application, an output based on the identified at least one frame to a device of the user in response to the request”; Claim 7, “the request comprising an indication of entity information, wherein the communicated output further comprises information related to the entity information as related to the identified at least one frame”),
but does not expressly disclose
analyzing, by the application, the frame of the video based on user data associated with the user, or that the entity is digitally depicted within the frame of the video, or that the media content is social media content or the media file is a social media file.
Wong discloses analyzing, by the application, the frame of the video based on user data associated with the user, and that the entity is digitally depicted within the frame of the video ([0029], "The captured snapshot image is sent from media device 102 or controller 104 to processor 106…..Processor 106 analyzes the image to determine any features of the image that may be used to perform a search. Processor 106 may recognize, for example, faces, logos, objects, text, any other suitable features, or any combination thereof. The recognized features of the image are used to translate the image into text descriptors that can be packaged with search images in a search query and used to supplement the search performed based on the snapshot image"; [0034], "Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image"; [0030] If multiple objects of different types are recognized in a snapshot image, processor 106 may determine which objects of the snapshot image to target for a search. For example, processor 106 may only target a logo only if it is a channel logo or a logo located on an object that is also included in the search. Processor 106 may also determine that faces are more likely to be search targets than background objects and may only target background objects if no faces are recognized in the snapshot image. The determination of objects to target for the search may be made automatically by the system or may be based on a user configuration of processor 106, a user's preferences determined from past searches, information included in supplemental data for the snapshot image, or any other suitable criteria. In addition, objects included in the search may be determined based on user input provided with the snapshot image or user input provided in response to a prompt from the search system”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’920 with Wong. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to find matching images (Wong, [0034]).
Fredinburg discloses searchable media content being social media content and a media file being a social media file (col. 11, paragraph 2, “A facial image database 114, which is searched to find the images that potentially match a facial image in a query, includes one or more image sources such as social network images 932, web album images 934, photo sharing images 936, and previous query images 938”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’920 and Fredinburg. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to find matching images in various sources including social network sources (Fredinburg, col. 11, paragraph 2).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 2-5, 7-9, 12-14, 16-17 and 19-20, see citations in the 103 rejection set forth below for the respective claims.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
9. Claims 6 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’920 in view of Wong and of Fredinburg, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eastes (US 2025/0238465).
As to claim 6, Application’920 in view of Wong and Fredinburg discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, including analyzing, upon the search, the social media content; and determining the social media file based on the analysis, the determination based on a context of digital content included within the social media file (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Wong, [0034], “Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query. Using the similarity evaluations, accepted matches may be determined by applying a threshold level of similarity, by ranking the potential matches, or by any other suitable approach. Identifier 110 then outputs one or more feature identifications based on the accepted matches for the targeted features of the snapshot image.” See Fredinburg as cited in rejection to claim 1 for the media file being a social media file),
but does not expressly disclose that the analyzing the social media content is via a large language model (LLM) or that the determining of the social media file is based on the LLM-based analysis. Eastes discloses analyzing media content via a large language model (LLM) and determining media file based on the LLM-based analysis ([0005], “the disclosed systems utilize machine learning models to extract text and/or use a large language model to generate text versions of snapshots including extracted text, descriptions of images, transcripts of videos, and/or textual summaries from displayed documents or webpages. In response to a search query, the disclosed systems can produce search results that include digital videos including captured snapshots of content displayed by a client device over time”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’920 in view of Wong and Fredinburg with Eastes. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to utilize specialized machine learning to enable searching the images/snapshots (Eastes, [0005]).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 6.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
10. Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’920 in view of Wong and of Fredinburg, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Becherer et al (US 2014/0089295).
As to claim 10, Application’920 in view of Wong and Fredinburg discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, including the request corresponding to a frame from the video (see citation in rejection to claim 1, Wong. Also see Wong, [0141], “The search query includes a combination of search images and text descriptors for targeted features of the snapshot image”, wherein each snapshot is equivalent to a frame), but does not expressly disclose a set of frames/snapshots. Becherer discloses a single search corresponding to a set of frames/snapshots from a video ([0028], “a user may take multiple snapshots to be used for a single search for an image”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’920 in view of Wong and Fredinburg with Becherer. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to combine multiple snapshots in a single search (Becherer, [0028]).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
--------------------------
11. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14 and 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18952052 (of the claim set dated 11/19/2024, hereafter “Application’052”) in view of Wong (US 2011/0282906) and Fredinburg et al (US 9098584).
As to claim 1, Application’052 discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by an application, a request from a user, the request corresponding to a frame of a video of an event (Claim 8’s Parent Claim 1, “receiving, by an application, a request from a user, the request corresponding to a frame of a video”; Claim 8, “the video currently being rendered on the device of the user”, wherein the sequence happening in the video being currently watched is equivalent to an event);
analyzing, by the application, the frame of the video based on user data associated with the user (Claim 8’s Patent Claim 1, “analyzing, by the application, the frame of the video; determining, by the application, information related to a product depicted within the frame of the video; analyzing, by the application, the product information based on user data associated with the user”);
determining, by the application, based on analysis of the frame, entity information, the entity information corresponding to an entity digitally depicted in the frame of the video (Claim 8’s Patent Claim 1, “analyzing, by the application, the frame of the video; determining, by the application, information related to a product depicted within the frame of the video; analyzing, by the application, the product information based on user data associated with the user; determining, by the application, a version of the product that corresponds to the user data”),
but does not expressly disclose searching, by the application, based on the entity information, social media content available over a network; determining, by the application, based on the search of media content, a media file that includes information related to the entity information; or communicating, by the application, in response to the request, the media file.
Wong discloses
searching, by the application, based on entity information, media content available over a network ([0029], "The captured snapshot image is sent from media device 102 or controller 104 to processor 106….. Processor 106 analyzes the image to determine any features of the image that may be used to perform a search. Processor 106 may recognize, for example, faces, logos, objects, text, any other suitable features, or any combination thereof”; [0034], “The search query created by processor 106 is sent to search engine 108…Search engine 108 includes identifier 110 and results generator 112. Identifier 110 analyzes the text and images in the search query provided by processor 106 and outputs identifications for the desired feature or features in the snapshot image. Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query. Using the similarity evaluations, accepted matches may be determined by applying a threshold level of similarity, by ranking the potential matches, or by any other suitable approach. Identifier 110 then outputs one or more feature identifications based on the accepted matches for the targeted features of the snapshot image.”; [0066], "Identifier 502 includes a collection of searchable data 508 that may be used to perform a search based on the received query. Searchable data 508 may include images and/or text descriptors. In some embodiments, searchable data 508 includes images related to media content, and each image is associated with a set of text descriptors that indicate features of the image. For example, searchable data 508 may include a collection of images of actors from movies and televisions shows. Each actor image may have a text descriptor that includes the actor's name and movies or television shows that the actor has appeared in. Searchable data 508 may be a collection of data specific to the searching system in which search engine 500 is implemented, a collection of all available Internet data, a media content database");
determining, by an application, based on the search of media content, a media file that includes information related to the entity information ([0034], "The search query created by processor 106 is sent to search engine 108….Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query"; [0035], "Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user." See [0066] as cited in preceding limitation for searching images related to "media content" in a "media content database" to match the image from the video. See also [0065], “A search query containing search images and/or text is received by identifier 502, which interprets the query and performs a search to identify the targeted features of the search query. The identifications are then passed to results generator 504, which locates information, media content, Internet content, or any other relevant content for the identified features. Results generator 504 then creates a display of search results that is presented to the user”); and
communicating, by the application, in response to a request, the media file (see citation in rejection to the preceding limitation for identified/matched at least one frame, which is based on to communicate an output to the user device, see [0035], "Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user”; [0035], "The search results may then be presented to the user on media device 102, on controller 104, by email, through an Internet browser, or by any other suitable approach”; [0065], “A search query containing search images and/or text is received by identifier 502, which interprets the query and performs a search to identify the targeted features of the search query. The identifications are then passed to results generator 504, which locates information, media content, Internet content, or any other relevant content for the identified features. Results generator 504 then creates a display of search results that is presented to the user”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Applicaton’052 with Wong. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to find matching images (Wong, [0034]).
Application’052 in view of Wong, however, does not expressly disclose that the media content is social media content or the media file is a social media file.
Fredinburg discloses searchable media content being social media content and a media file being a social media file (col. 11, paragraph 2, “A facial image database 114, which is searched to find the images that potentially match a facial image in a query, includes one or more image sources such as social network images 932, web album images 934, photo sharing images 936, and previous query images 938”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’052 in view of Wong and Fredinburg. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to find matching images in various sources including social network sources (Fredinburg, col. 11, paragraph 2).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 2-5, 7-9, 12-14, 16-17 and 19-20, see citations in the 103 rejection set forth below for the respective claims.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
12. Claims 6 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’052 in view of Wong and of Fredinburg, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eastes (US 2025/0238465).
As to claim 6, Application’052 in view of Wong and Fredinburg discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, including analyzing, upon the search, the social media content; and determining the social media file based on the analysis, the determination based on a context of digital content included within the social media file (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Wong, [0034], “Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query. Using the similarity evaluations, accepted matches may be determined by applying a threshold level of similarity, by ranking the potential matches, or by any other suitable approach. Identifier 110 then outputs one or more feature identifications based on the accepted matches for the targeted features of the snapshot image.” See Fredinburg as cited in rejection to claim 1 for the media file being a social media file),
but does not expressly disclose that the analyzing the social media content is via a large language model (LLM) or that the determining of the social media file is based on the LLM-based analysis. Eastes discloses analyzing media content via a large language model (LLM) and determining media file based on the LLM-based analysis ([0005], “the disclosed systems utilize machine learning models to extract text and/or use a large language model to generate text versions of snapshots including extracted text, descriptions of images, transcripts of videos, and/or textual summaries from displayed documents or webpages. In response to a search query, the disclosed systems can produce search results that include digital videos including captured snapshots of content displayed by a client device over time”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’052 in view of Wong and Fredinburg with Eastes. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to utilize specialized machine learning to enable searching the images/snapshots (Eastes, [0005]).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 6.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
13. Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’052 in view of Wong and of Fredinburg, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Becherer et al (US 2014/0089295).
As to claim 10, Application’052 in view of Wong and Fredinburg discloses the claimed invention substantially including the request corresponding to a frame from the video (see citation in rejection to claim 1, Wong. Also see Wong, [0141], “The search query includes a combination of search images and text descriptors for targeted features of the snapshot image”, wherein each snapshot is equivalent to a frame), but does not expressly disclose a set of frames/snapshots. Becherer discloses a single search corresponding to a set of frames/snapshots from a video ([0028], “a user may take multiple snapshots to be used for a single search for an image”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’052 in view of Wong and Fredinburg with Becherer. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to combine multiple snapshots in a single search (Becherer, [0028]).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
--------------------------
14. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14 and 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18951837 (of the claim set dated 11/19/2024, hereafter “Application’837”) in view of Wong (US 2011/0282906) and Fredinburg et al (US 9098584).
As to claim 1, Application’837 discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by an application, a request from a user, the request corresponding to a frame of a video of an event (Claim 8’s Grand Parent Claim 1, “rendering, by an application associated with a device, a video related to a live event; receiving, by the application, during the rendering of the video, a request from a user related to at least one frame of the video”);
analyzing, by the application, the frame of the video based on user data associated with the user (Claim 8’s Patent Claim 6, “the request comprising an indication to capture entity information from within the at least one frame of the video, the entity information corresponding to at least a portion of entities depicted within the at least one frame” and Claim 8, “performing the analysis of the other rendering of the video based on data associated with the user; determining, by the application, based on the analysis, the entity information from the other rendering”, indicating that the entity information is captured from the at least one frame of the video, which is found in the other rendering of the same video, via analyzing the frame of the video based on user data associated with the user);
determining, by the application, based on analysis of the frame, entity information, the entity information corresponding to an entity digitally depicted in the frame of the video (see citation in the preceding limitation),
but does not expressly disclose searching, by the application, based on the entity information, social media content available over a network; determining, by the application, based on the search of media content, a media file that includes information related to the entity information; or communicating, by the application, in response to the request, the media file.
Wong discloses
searching, by the application, based on entity information, media content available over a network ([0029], "The captured snapshot image is sent from media device 102 or controller 104 to processor 106….. Processor 106 analyzes the image to determine any features of the image that may be used to perform a search. Processor 106 may recognize, for example, faces, logos, objects, text, any other suitable features, or any combination thereof”; [0034], “The search query created by processor 106 is sent to search engine 108…Search engine 108 includes identifier 110 and results generator 112. Identifier 110 analyzes the text and images in the search query provided by processor 106 and outputs identifications for the desired feature or features in the snapshot image. Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query. Using the similarity evaluations, accepted matches may be determined by applying a threshold level of similarity, by ranking the potential matches, or by any other suitable approach. Identifier 110 then outputs one or more feature identifications based on the accepted matches for the targeted features of the snapshot image.”; [0066], "Identifier 502 includes a collection of searchable data 508 that may be used to perform a search based on the received query. Searchable data 508 may include images and/or text descriptors. In some embodiments, searchable data 508 includes images related to media content, and each image is associated with a set of text descriptors that indicate features of the image. For example, searchable data 508 may include a collection of images of actors from movies and televisions shows. Each actor image may have a text descriptor that includes the actor's name and movies or television shows that the actor has appeared in. Searchable data 508 may be a collection of data specific to the searching system in which search engine 500 is implemented, a collection of all available Internet data, a media content database");
determining, by an application, based on the search of media content, a media file that includes information related to the entity information ([0034], "The search query created by processor 106 is sent to search engine 108….Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query"; [0035], "Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user." See [0066] as cited in preceding limitation for searching images related to "media content" in a "media content database" to match the image from the video. See also [0065], “A search query containing search images and/or text is received by identifier 502, which interprets the query and performs a search to identify the targeted features of the search query. The identifications are then passed to results generator 504, which locates information, media content, Internet content, or any other relevant content for the identified features. Results generator 504 then creates a display of search results that is presented to the user”); and
communicating, by the application, in response to a request, the media file (see citation in rejection to the preceding limitation for identified/matched at least one frame, which is based on to communicate an output to the user device, see [0035], "Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user”; [0035], "The search results may then be presented to the user on media device 102, on controller 104, by email, through an Internet browser, or by any other suitable approach”; [0065], “A search query containing search images and/or text is received by identifier 502, which interprets the query and performs a search to identify the targeted features of the search query. The identifications are then passed to results generator 504, which locates information, media content, Internet content, or any other relevant content for the identified features. Results generator 504 then creates a display of search results that is presented to the user”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Applicaton’052 with Wong. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to find matching images (Wong, [0034]).
Application’052 in view of Wong, however, does not expressly disclose that the media content is social media content or the media file is a social media file.
Fredinburg discloses searchable media content being social media content and a media file being a social media file (col. 11, paragraph 2, “A facial image database 114, which is searched to find the images that potentially match a facial image in a query, includes one or more image sources such as social network images 932, web album images 934, photo sharing images 936, and previous query images 938”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’052 in view of Wong and Fredinburg. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to find matching images in various sources including social network sources (Fredinburg, col. 11, paragraph 2).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claims 2-5, 7-9, 12-14, 16-17 and 19-20, see citations in the 103 rejection set forth below for the respective claims.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
15. Claims 6 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’837 in view of Wong and of Fredinburg, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eastes (US 2025/0238465).
As to claim 6, Application’837 in view of Wong and Fredinburg discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, including analyzing, upon the search, the social media content; and determining the social media file based on the analysis, the determination based on a context of digital content included within the social media file (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Wong, [0034], “Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query. Using the similarity evaluations, accepted matches may be determined by applying a threshold level of similarity, by ranking the potential matches, or by any other suitable approach. Identifier 110 then outputs one or more feature identifications based on the accepted matches for the targeted features of the snapshot image.” See Fredinburg as cited in rejection to claim 1 for the media file being a social media file),
but does not expressly disclose that the analyzing the social media content is via a large language model (LLM) or that the determining of the social media file is based on the LLM-based analysis. Eastes discloses analyzing media content via a large language model (LLM) and determining media file based on the LLM-based analysis ([0005], “the disclosed systems utilize machine learning models to extract text and/or use a large language model to generate text versions of snapshots including extracted text, descriptions of images, transcripts of videos, and/or textual summaries from displayed documents or webpages. In response to a search query, the disclosed systems can produce search results that include digital videos including captured snapshots of content displayed by a client device over time”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’837 in view of Wong and Fredinburg with Eastes. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to utilize specialized machine learning to enable searching the images/snapshots (Eastes, [0005]).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 6.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
16. Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Application’837 in view of Wong and of Fredinburg, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Becherer et al (US 2014/0089295).
As to claim 10, Application’837 in view of Wong and Fredinburg discloses the claimed invention substantially including the request corresponding to a frame from the video (see citation in rejection to claim 1, Wong. Also see Wong, [0141], “The search query includes a combination of search images and text descriptors for targeted features of the snapshot image”, wherein each snapshot is equivalent to a frame), but does not expressly disclose a set of frames/snapshots. Becherer discloses a single search corresponding to a set of frames/snapshots from a video ([0028], “a user may take multiple snapshots to be used for a single search for an image”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Application’837 in view of Wong and Fredinburg with Becherer. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to combine multiple snapshots in a single search (Becherer, [0028]).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
17. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
18. 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 of this title, 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.
19. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
20. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 2011/0282906) in view of Fredinburg et al (US 9098584).
As to claim 1, Wong discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by an application, a request from a user, the request corresponding to a frame of a video of an event ([0023], "A user accessing any form of media content may wish to perform a search based on the media content. The user may, for example, want to identify something shown on a display, such as an actor or a handbag in a scene. The user may also want to identify the media content if the user is viewing a short video clip taken, for example, from a movie or television show; [0024], "A snapshot image can be captured from the media content and used, along with any available supplemental data and user input, to perform the desired search"; [0028], "To initiate the search, the user captures a snapshot image of the on-screen media content and uses the captured snapshot image as a search entry. The user captures a snapshot image that contains the items or features of the media content that the user wishes to use for the search. For example, if the user is trying to find the name of an actor, the snapshot image is captured when the actor's face is on screen”, wherein the snapshot image is equivalent to a frame of a video, see [0022], "The term multimedia is defined herein as media and content that utilizes at least two different content forms, such as text, audio, still images, animation, video, and interactivity content forms. Multimedia content may be recorded and played, displayed, or accessed by information content processing devices, such as computerized and electronic devices, but may also be part of a live performance. It should be understood that the invention embodiments that are described in relation to media or media content are also applicable to other types of content, such as video, audio and/or multimedia", disclosing that the "media content" as described in Wong can be "multimedia" comprising "video" of a "live performance", therefore a snapshot of the media content reads on “a frame of a video of an event”);
analyzing, by the application, the frame of the video based on user data associated with the user ([0029], "The captured snapshot image is sent from media device 102 or controller 104 to processor 106…..Processor 106 analyzes the image to determine any features of the image that may be used to perform a search. Processor 106 may recognize, for example, faces, logos, objects, text, any other suitable features, or any combination thereof. The recognized features of the image are used to translate the image into text descriptors that can be packaged with search images in a search query and used to supplement the search performed based on the snapshot image"; [0034], "Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image"; [0030] If multiple objects of different types are recognized in a snapshot image, processor 106 may determine which objects of the snapshot image to target for a search. For example, processor 106 may only target a logo only if it is a channel logo or a logo located on an object that is also included in the search. Processor 106 may also determine that faces are more likely to be search targets than background objects and may only target background objects if no faces are recognized in the snapshot image. The determination of objects to target for the search may be made automatically by the system or may be based on a user configuration of processor 106, a user's preferences determined from past searches, information included in supplemental data for the snapshot image, or any other suitable criteria. In addition, objects included in the search may be determined based on user input provided with the snapshot image or user input provided in response to a prompt from the search system”);
determining, by the application, based on the analysis of the frame, entity information, the entity information corresponding to an entity digitally depicted within the frame of the video (see citation in rejection to the preceding limitation, e.g., [0029], "The captured snapshot image is sent from media device 102 or controller 104 to processor 106….. Processor 106 analyzes the image to determine any features of the image that may be used to perform a search. Processor 106 may recognize, for example, faces, logos, objects, text, any other suitable features, or any combination thereof”);
searching, by the application, based on the entity information, media content available over a network ([0029], "The captured snapshot image is sent from media device 102 or controller 104 to processor 106….. Processor 106 analyzes the image to determine any features of the image that may be used to perform a search. Processor 106 may recognize, for example, faces, logos, objects, text, any other suitable features, or any combination thereof”; [0034], “The search query created by processor 106 is sent to search engine 108…Search engine 108 includes identifier 110 and results generator 112. Identifier 110 analyzes the text and images in the search query provided by processor 106 and outputs identifications for the desired feature or features in the snapshot image. Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query. Using the similarity evaluations, accepted matches may be determined by applying a threshold level of similarity, by ranking the potential matches, or by any other suitable approach. Identifier 110 then outputs one or more feature identifications based on the accepted matches for the targeted features of the snapshot image.”; [0066], "Identifier 502 includes a collection of searchable data 508 that may be used to perform a search based on the received query. Searchable data 508 may include images and/or text descriptors. In some embodiments, searchable data 508 includes images related to media content, and each image is associated with a set of text descriptors that indicate features of the image. For example, searchable data 508 may include a collection of images of actors from movies and televisions shows. Each actor image may have a text descriptor that includes the actor's name and movies or television shows that the actor has appeared in. Searchable data 508 may be a collection of data specific to the searching system in which search engine 500 is implemented, a collection of all available Internet data, a media content database". See Fig. 3, showing media content available over a network);
determining, by the application, based on the search of media content, a media file that includes information related to the entity information (see citation in the preceding limitations, e.g., [0034], "The search query created by processor 106 is sent to search engine 108….Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query"; [0035], "Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user." See [0066] as cited in preceding limitation for searching images related to "media content" in a "media content database" to match the image from the video. See also [0065], “A search query containing search images and/or text is received by identifier 502, which interprets the query and performs a search to identify the targeted features of the search query. The identifications are then passed to results generator 504, which locates information, media content, Internet content, or any other relevant content for the identified features. Results generator 504 then creates a display of search results that is presented to the user”); and
communicating, by the application, in response to the request, the media file (see citation in rejection to the preceding limitation for identified/matched at least one frame, which is based on to communicate an output to the user device, see [0035], "Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user”; [0035], "The search results may then be presented to the user on media device 102, on controller 104, by email, through an Internet browser, or by any other suitable approach”; [0065], “A search query containing search images and/or text is received by identifier 502, which interprets the query and performs a search to identify the targeted features of the search query. The identifications are then passed to results generator 504, which locates information, media content, Internet content, or any other relevant content for the identified features. Results generator 504 then creates a display of search results that is presented to the user”),
but does not expressly disclose that the media content is social media content or the media file is a social media file. Fredinburg discloses searchable media content being social media content and a media file being a social media file (col. 11, paragraph 2, “A facial image database 114, which is searched to find the images that potentially match a facial image in a query, includes one or more image sources such as social network images 932, web album images 934, photo sharing images 936, and previous query images 938”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wong and Fredinburg. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to find matching images in various sources including social network sources (Fredinburg, col. 11, paragraph 2).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 2, Wong in view of Fredinburg discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying, based on the search, a set of social media files that comprise digital content related to the entity information (Wong, [0034], “The search query created by processor 106 is sent to search engine 108…Search engine 108 includes identifier 110 and results generator 112. Identifier 110 analyzes the text and images in the search query provided by processor 106 and outputs identifications for the desired feature or features in the snapshot image. Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query. Using the similarity evaluations, accepted matches may be determined by applying a threshold level of similarity, by ranking the potential matches, or by any other suitable approach. Identifier 110 then outputs one or more feature identifications based on the accepted matches for the targeted features of the snapshot image”, See Fredinburg as cited in rejection to claim 1 for the media files being social media files);
analyzing data related to each of the set of social media files (see citation above); and
determining a ranking of the social media files within the set of social media files based on the analysis of the data (see citation above, “by ranking the potential matches”).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 3, Wong in view of Fredinburg discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
determining a weight of each of the set of social media files based on the analysis of the data (Fredinburg, col. 20, lines 30-50, “In some embodiments, the requester can identify certain information from the database of person-specific data 964 as being more important than other information from the database of person-specific data 964. For example, the requester might specify that information concerning the industry in which a person works be given higher weight than other person-specific data, because the requester is attending a 13. work-related function and thus query images are likely to include facial images of other people working in the same industry as the requester”. See also Fig. 13, “Value and weight” and col. 20, line 45 to col. 21, line 2, “These derived characteristics include one or more of (and typically two or more of): indoor habitat factor 1832, an outdoor habitat factor 1834, a glasses factor 1840, a facial hair factor 1842, a head hair factor 1844, a headwear factor 1846, clothing factor 1847, an eye color factor 1848, as well as occurrences information regarding an amount of occurrences of the respective person in the one or more image sources 1850…. Each derived characteristic 1830, derived from other images of a respective person, is given a value and a weight which is used in determining the ranking score for a respective person when that derived characteristic is used”); and
performing the ranking based on the determined weight of each of the set of social media files (Fredinburg, col. 20, last paragraph to col. 21, paragraph 1, “Each derived characteristic 1830, derived from other images of a respective person, is given a value and a weight which is used in determining the ranking score for a respective person when that derived characteristic is used”; col. 9, lines 35-45, “the results ranking and formatting module 824 ranks all of the results from the search system having the most relevant result (e.g., the result with the highest relevance score) above the results for the less relevant search systems….the results ranking and formatting module 824 ranks the results in accordance with a relevance score computed for each of the search results”).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 4, Wong in view of Fredinburg discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising the weight corresponding an indication within each of the set of social media files selected from a group consisting of: reviews, feedback, a manner of display of the entity within a respective social media file, source of the respective social media file, engagement metrics and attribution information (Fredinburg, Fig. 13, “Value and weight” and col. 20, line 45 to col. 21, line 2, “These derived characteristics include one or more of (and typically two or more of): indoor habitat factor 1832, an outdoor habitat factor 1834, a glasses factor 1840, a facial hair factor 1842, a head hair factor 1844, a headwear factor 1846, clothing factor 1847, an eye color factor 1848, as well as occurrences information regarding an amount of occurrences of the respective person in the one or more image sources 1850…. Each derived characteristic 1830, derived from other images of a respective person, is given a value and a weight which is used in determining the ranking score for a respective person when that derived characteristic is used”, wherein “a facial hair factor, a head hair factor, a headwear factor, clothing factor, an eye color factor” reads on the claimed “a manner of display of the entity within a respective social media file”).
As to claim 5, Wong in view of Fredinburg discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising selecting a highest ranked social media file, such that the determined social media file is based on the selection (Fredinburg, col. 20, last paragraph to col. 21, paragraph 1, “Each derived characteristic 1830, derived from other images of a respective person, is given a value and a weight which is used in determining the ranking score for a respective person when that derived characteristic is used”; col. 9, lines 35-45, “the results ranking and formatting module 824 ranks all of the results from the search system having the most relevant result (e.g., the result with the highest relevance score) above the results for the less relevant search systems….the results ranking and formatting module 824 ranks the results in accordance with a relevance score computed for each of the search results”).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 5.
As to claim 7, Wong in view of Fredinburg discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising the social media content being tagged social media posts, wherein the search comprises analyzing tags of each social media post (Fredinburg, col. 12, lines 48-55, “The potential image matches include images that are tagged, i.e., images that include personal identifiers for the person or persons in the images. In some embodiments, the one or more image sources include images from a requestor' s social networking database(s), web album(s), photo sharing database(s)”; col. 13, paragraph 2, “a search is made of generalized web content 941. Then, one or more persons associated with the potential image matches are identified, as at 1608. In some embodiments, the one or more persons are identified from personal identifier tags associated with the identified image matches. For example, the system may identify that Bob Smith, Joe Jones, and Peter Johnson are persons associated with potential image matches for a query including an image of a male friend because these three people were tagged in other images associated with the requestor, and these three people are visually similar to the facial image in the query”).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 8, Wong in view of Fredinburg discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
compiling an output based on the entity information and the social media file, wherein the communication comprises the output (Wong, [0035], "Results generator 112 uses the identifications to locate information and content related to the targeted features of the snapshot image to present to the user. Results generator 112 may include media content sources, information sources, Internet sources, display template sources, or any other suitable sources for gathering and presenting search results to the user”; [0035], "The search results may then be presented to the user on media device 102, on controller 104, by email, through an Internet browser, or by any other suitable approach”; [0065], “A search query containing search images and/or text is received by identifier 502, which interprets the query and performs a search to identify the targeted features of the search query. The identifications are then passed to results generator 504, which locates information, media content, Internet content, or any other relevant content for the identified features. Results generator 504 then creates a display of search results that is presented to the user”. See Fredinburg as cited in rejection to claim 1 for the media file being a social media file).
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 9, Wong in view of Fredinburg discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising the video of the event being a live broadcast of the event that the user is currently viewing (Wong, see [0022], "The term multimedia is defined herein as media and content that utilizes at least two different content forms, such as text, audio, still images, animation, video, and interactivity content forms. Multimedia content may be recorded and played, displayed, or accessed by information content processing devices, such as computerized and electronic devices, but may also be part of a live performance. It should be understood that the invention embodiments that are described in relation to media or media content are also applicable to other types of content, such as video, audio and/or multimedia", disclosing that the "media content" as described in Wong can be "multimedia" comprising "video" of a "live performance"; [0080], “An illustrative image-based media content search performed using the present invention is shown in FIGS. 6A-C. While viewing media content, a user may wish to perform a search related to the media content. The desired search may be to identify an actor, identify a movie or show, identify an object on screen”).
21. Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Fredinburg, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eastes (US 2025/0238465).
As to claim 6, Wong in view of Fredinburg discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, including analyzing, upon the search, the social media content; and determining the social media file based on the analysis, the determination based on a context of digital content included within the social media file (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Wong, [0034], “Identifier 110 analyzes text descriptors and search images in the search query in an attempt to target the search to a subset of data to efficiently identify images and information as potential matches for targeted features of the captured snapshot image. Once potential matching images are identified, accepted matches are determined. Accepted matches may be determined by evaluating the similarity between images and descriptors for potential matches and images and descriptors in the search query. Using the similarity evaluations, accepted matches may be determined by applying a threshold level of similarity, by ranking the potential matches, or by any other suitable approach. Identifier 110 then outputs one or more feature identifications based on the accepted matches for the targeted features of the snapshot image.” See Fredinburg as cited in rejection to claim 1 for the media file being a social media file),
but does not expressly disclose that the analyzing the social media content is via a large language model (LLM) or that the determining of the social media file is based on the LLM-based analysis. Eastes discloses analyzing media content via a large language model (LLM) and determining media file based on the LLM-based analysis ([0005], “the disclosed systems utilize machine learning models to extract text and/or use a large language model to generate text versions of snapshots including extracted text, descriptions of images, transcripts of videos, and/or textual summaries from displayed documents or webpages. In response to a search query, the disclosed systems can produce search results that include digital videos including captured snapshots of content displayed by a client device over time”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wong in view of Fredinburg with Eastes. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to utilize machine learning to enable searching the images/snapshots (Eastes, [0005]).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 6.
22. Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Fredinburg, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Becherer et al (US 2014/0089295).
As to claim 10, Wong in view of Fredinburg discloses the claimed invention substantially including the request corresponding to a frame from the video (see citation in rejection to claim 1, Wong. Also see Wong, [0141], “The search query includes a combination of search images and text descriptors for targeted features of the snapshot image”, wherein each snapshot is equivalent to a frame), but does not expressly disclose a set of frames/snapshots. Becherer discloses a single search corresponding to a set of frames/snapshots from a video ([0028], “a user may take multiple snapshots to be used for a single search for an image”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Wong in view of Fredinburg with Becherer. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to combine multiple snapshots in a single search (Becherer, [0028]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/HUA FAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights