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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 7, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-15 and 18-22 are pending. Claims 1, 7, 9-11, 13-15, and 18-20 are amended. Claims 16 and 17 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Referring the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-15 and 18-21 as amended, Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims do not recite a mental process because of the recited clustering algorithm that is used to cluster the media content. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner submits that the act of clustering media content is a mental process, wherein a user can mentally group together subsets of data. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind. Furthermore the use of the clustering algorithm in clustering the media content is merely using a high-level recitation of generic computer software to perform the mental process of clustering and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a practical application for the judicial exception because the relational map and cluster view provide a computer implemented organization and navigation mechanism that is used to identify and retrieve related media content. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recitation of a display of related media content items and the clustering thereof in order to locate related media content items is merely implementing the abstract idea within a field of use- in this case clustering and searching of clustered media content items. It does not recite a practical application for the mental steps.
As such, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101 and further in view of the new grounds of rejection addressed below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 and 18-22, as amended, have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/7/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite:
receiving, though an interactive user interface and sent over a communication network from a user device, media content event data associated with creation of a media content, wherein at least one individual is involved in the creation of the media content;
processing the media content event data to extract a plurality of structured identity datasets associated with the creation of the media content, wherein the plurality of structured identity datasets identify the at least one individual involved in the creation of the media content;
generating a relational map that arranges data points of the plurality of structured identity datasets corresponding to additional media content according to respective individuals involved in creation of the media content;
updating the relational map based on at least one interaction with the interactive user interface to provide a cluster view in which subsets of the data points of the media content and of the additional media content are clustered into one or more clusters in accordance with a clustering algorithm; and
retrieving second media content based on the closeness of the secondary media content to one of the clusters of the relational map.
Step 1: The claims as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: At least claims 1, 19 and 20 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “processing the media content event data to extract a plurality of structured identity datasets associated with the creation of the media content, wherein the plurality of structured identity datasets identify the at least one individual involved in the creation of the media content” is a mental step. A user can inspect datasets for certain criteria and select those datasets that meet the criteria. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Furthermore, the limitation “generating a relational map that arranges data points of the plurality of structured identity datasets corresponding to additional media content according to respective individuals involved in creation of the media content” is also a mental step. A user can generate a mapping of elements corresponding to a desired parameter- in this case- individuals that create the media content, mentally or using pen and paper. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “updating the relational map based on at least one interaction to provide a cluster view in which subsets of the data points of the media content and of the additional media content are clustered into one or more clusters” is also a mental step. The user can mentally group together subsets of data. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the limitations “receiving, media content event data associated with creation of a media content, wherein at least one individual is involved in the creation of the media content” and “retrieving second media content based on the closeness of the secondary media content to one of the clusters of the relational map”. These limitations are additional elements and are insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Furthermore, Claims 1, 19 and 20 recites the following additional elements “a system”, “a processor”, “memory/computer readable storage medium” and “an interactive user interface”, “clustering algorithm”, “communication network”, “user device” note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer hardware and software components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "receiving” and “retrieving” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 2-4, 6, 9, 21 and 22 depend from claims 1 and 19 and thus include all the limitations of claims 1 and 19, therefore claims 2-4, 6, 9, 21 and 22 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 2-4, 6, 9, 21 and 22 furthermore recite:
(claims 2, 21) receiving the media content, wherein the media content includes audio content having at least one audio characteristic;
(claims 3, 22): wherein the at least one audio characteristic includes at least one of a bridge, a chorus, a melody, or a harmony;
(claim 4) wherein the at least one audio characteristic includes at least one of a pitch, a rhythm, a tempo, a timbre, a musical key, or a genre;
(claim 6) wherein the media content includes at least one of a video content, image content, or a text content;
(claim 9) receiving additional media content event data associated with the creation of the media content; and processing the additional media content event data to extract one or more additional structured identity datasets associated with the creation of the media content.
Step 1: Claims 2-4, 6, 9, 21 and 22 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claim 9 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “processing the additional media content event data to extract one or more additional structured identity datasets associated with the creation of the media content” in claim 9 is a mental step. One can mentally review data in order to make a data selection to use for the creation of media content. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 2-4, 6, 9, 21 and 22 recite the limitations
“receiving the media content, wherein the media content includes audio content having at least one audio characteristic”, “wherein the at least one audio characteristic includes at least one of a bridge, a chorus, a melody, or a harmony”, “wherein the at least one audio characteristic includes at least one of a pitch, a rhythm, a tempo, a timbre, a musical key, or a genre”, “wherein the media content includes at least one of a video content, image content, or a text content” and “receiving additional media content event data associated with the creation of the media content”.
These receiving steps are additional elements that further define the “receiving of media content event data associated with a creation of media content” in claims 1 and 19, as addressed above and are also insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
With respect to the "receiving” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above, when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 2-4, 6, 9, 21 and 22 as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 5, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 18 depend from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 5, 8, 14, 15, and 18 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 5, 8, 14, 15, and 18 furthermore recite:
(claim 5) identifying a type of the media content, wherein the type is one of an original, a derivative, a remix, or a modification;
(claim 8) generating a source reliability score indicating a reliability of a data source;
(claim 13) wherein the relational map includes data points of at least a subset of the plurality of structured identity datasets positioned according to a chronological order relative to a creation date of the media content;
(claim 14) wherein processing the media content event data includes processing the media content event data using a trained machine learning model to identify the plurality of structured identity datasets;
(claim 15) updating the trained machine learning model based on feedback associated with the plurality of structured identity datasets;
(claim 18) wherein the plurality of structured identity datasets includes an identifier of a person associated with the media content and at least one of a genre, a tempo, a pitch, a type of harmony, a location associated with the media content, metadata associated with the media content, or an event associated with the media content.
Step 1: Claims 5, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 18 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 5, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 18 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitations “identifying a type of the media content, wherein the type is one of an original, a derivative, a remix, or a modification”, “generating a source reliability score indicating a reliability of a data source”, and “processing the media content event data to identify the plurality of structured identity datasets” are mental steps. One can mentally determine that a media content is of a certain type, can determine a reliability score to indicate a source reliability from which the media content is obtained, and analyze the data to identify certain data elements within the data. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “the relational map includes data points of at least a subset of the plurality of structured identity datasets positioned according to a chronological order relative to a creation date of the media content” further defines the mental step of “generating a relational map” step in claim 1. As such, this limitation is also a mental step that can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “wherein the plurality of structured identity datasets includes an identifier of a person associated with the media content and at least one of a genre, a tempo, a pitch, a type of harmony, a location associated with the media content, metadata associated with the media content, or an event associated with the media content” further defines the mental step of “processing the media content event data” in claims 1 and 19. As such, this limitation is also a mental step that can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
Furthermore, Claims 14 and 15 recite the following additional elements “a trained machine learning model”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer software components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “updating the trained machine learning model based on feedback associated with the plurality of structured identity datasets”. This is an additional element and is using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as storing of data after the fact to an abstract idea (mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
Furthermore, the “updating” limitation is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 5, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 18 as a whole are ineligible.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claim 7 recites the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claim 7 furthermore recites: storing the plurality of structured identity datasets in at least one database.
Step 1: Claim 7 as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claim 7 recites mental processes because it depends from claim 1.
Step 2A prong 2:
The limitation of “storing the plurality of structured identity datasets in at least one database” is an additional element and is using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as storing of data after the fact to an abstract idea (mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Step 2B:
Furthermore, the “storing” limitation is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claim 7 as a whole is ineligible.
Claims 10-12 depend from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 10-12 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 10-12 furthermore recite:
(claim 10): receiving a query; selecting at least one of the plurality of structured identity datasets; searching through structured identity datasets stored in a database using the query; identifying one or more structured identity datasets stored in the database matching the at least one of the plurality of structured identity datasets selected; and outputting a search result corresponding to the query, wherein the search result is associated with the one or more of the plurality of structured identity datasets;
(claim 11) wherein generating the relational map includes outputting the search result;
(claim 12) retrieving the search result from the database;
Step 1: Claims 10-12 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 10-12 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitations “selecting at least one of the plurality of structured identity datasets” and “identifying one or more structured identity datasets stored in the database matching the at least one of the plurality of structured identity datasets selected” are mental steps. One can mentally select data to be searched and identify data that matches certain criteria. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
The limitations “receiving a query” and “retrieving the search result from the database”. These limitations are additional elements and are also insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
The limitations “outputting a search result corresponding to the query, wherein the search result is associated with the one or more of the plurality of structured identity datasets”, “searching through structured identity datasets stored in a database using the query” and “generating the relational map includes outputting the search result”. These limitations are additional elements and are also additional elements and insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting a data source for information for display such as ‘selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display’, as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Furthermore, the “outputting” and “searching” limitations are identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, claims 10-12 as a whole are ineligible.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory} above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to place them within the four statutory categories of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0411806 by Larsen et al (hereafter Larsen), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2022/0187959 by Collins et al (hereafter Collins), and further in view of US 2018/0005131 by Yin et al (hereafter Yin).
Referring to claim 1, Larsen discloses a method for media processing [Abstract], the method comprising:
receiving, though an interactive user interface and sent over a communication network from a user device [client 1202, network 1224, para 118, Fig 12], media content event data associated with creation of a media content, wherein at least one individual is involved in the creation of the media content [wherein a content creator selects song segments pertaining to an input song, wherein the user can specify time windows of the media through a user interface, para 68-69, Fig 3, elements 301-302];
processing the media content event data to extract a plurality of structured identity datasets associated with the creation of the media content [vibe attributes and/or characterizations for each song segment are loaded or retrieved, para 70, Fig 3, element 303; vibe attributes are extracted from the song, Fig 1, element 105; musical attributes are extracted and used to characterize the acoustic and emotive content of the media, para 65, Fig 2, element 206];
generating an aggregation of the plurality of structured identity datasets corresponding to additional media content [segment attributes and/or characterizations are aggregated to locate songs with a similar vibe to the indicated segments- aggregation could include a list of all musical eras (as an aggregate type) represented in the input set of media as an example, para 71, Fig 3, element 304; vibe attributes are saved in system library/media cataloging system, para 61, 66-67, Fig 1, element 106, Fig 2, element 204; content creators can search the media library or catalog to identify matches to input media, para 67, Fig 3; search timeline, para 113].
However, while Larsen discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses that a user specifies time windows of an input song to be searched [para 68-69, Fig 3, elements 301-302], and that segment attributes and/or characterizations corresponding to the user indicated song segments are aggregated into a list of attributes [para 71, Fig 3, element 304], it remains silent as to: the media attributes identifying at least one individual involved in the creation of the media content; that the aggregated content is a relational map that arranges data points of the media content according to respective individuals involved in creation of the media content; and updating the relational map based on at least one interaction with the interactive user interface to provide a cluster view in which subsets of the data points of the media content and of the additional media content are clustered into one or more clusters in accordance with a clustering algorithm; and retrieving secondary media content based on the closeness of the secondary media content to one of the clusters of the relational map.
Collins teaches media attributes identifying at least one individual involved in the creation of the media content [message sender identifier 422, Fig 4, para 81; live story contributor, para 66]; that the aggregated content is a relational map that arranges data points of the media content according to respective individuals involved in creation of the media content [captured and generated media content is presented in a gallery display format in a timeline sorted chronologically based on the date and time in which the media content was captured or generated, para 16, 42; Fig 6-7; first content metadata 720 includes media content characteristics of in media content item 712 displayed in media content collection interface 700 includes individuals that are included in the media content item, e.g. three women holding hands at a sporting event, para para 114-116, Fig 7]; and updating the relational map based on at least one interaction with the interactive user interface to provide a cluster view in which subsets of the data points of the media content and of the additional media content are clustered into one or more clusters and retrieving secondary media content based on the closeness of the secondary media content to one of the clusters of the relational map [as user activates overlay icon component 718, timeline content collection 714 is generated, that includes second set of media content items that match the first content metadata 720 associated with media content item 712, para 116, Fig 7].
Larsen and Collins are analogous art that are directed to the same field of endeavor – analysis of media content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the media content attributes of Larsen to include individuals involved in creation of the media content, display the aggregation of media content items in a relational map and clustered form as in the timeline of media content items pertaining to first media content item 712, as in Collins because it would achieve predictable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make these modifications because individuals involved in creation of the media content in Collins further refines the media attributes of Larsen. Furthermore, the display of the timeline collection of clustered ordered media content is a type of aggregated list of content as in Larsen.
Still referring to claim 1, while Larsen/Collins disclose all of the above claimed subject matter and also disclose displaying a cluster of media content items that match the first content metadata 720 associated with media content item 712 [Collins, para 116, Fig 7], it remains silent as to the clustering specifically in accordance with a clustering algorithm. Yin teaches determining an episode timeline by clustering social media data items by assigning each social media content item to a detected episode [para 86, Fig 4, element 404] using cluster analysis [para 79].
Larsen, Collins and Yin are analogous art that are directed to the same field of endeavor – analysis of media content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the displayed timeline of clustered media content items 714 of Collins according to the cluster analysis techniques employed in Yin because it would achieve predictable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make these modifications because the cluster analysis techniques of Yin further define the criteria with which the media content items are determined to match the first media content item 712 in Collins.
The limitations of claim 19 are similar to those of claim 1 in the form of a system [Larsen, computing device 1500, Fig 15] comprising a memory [Larsen, para 132] and processor executing instructions [Larsen, processor 1502 executes instructions, para 135, Fig 15]. As such, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
The limitations of claim 20 are similar to those of claim 1 in the form of computer storage with program instructions executable by a processor [Larsen, para 128-129; processor 1502 executes instructions, para 135, Fig 15]. As such, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Referring to claims 2 and 21, Larsen/Collins/Yin discloses receiving the media content, wherein the media content includes audio content having at least one audio characteristic [Larsen, input song list includes audio files, para 58, Fig 1, element 102; para 60; melodic key(s), and/or harmonic structure (e.g., chord progressions), para 34].
Referring to claims 3 and 22, Larsen/Collins/Yin discloses that the at least one audio characteristic includes at least one of a bridge, a chorus, a melody, or a harmony [Larsen, melodic key(s), and/or harmonic structure (e.g., chord progressions), para 34,40].
Referring to claim 4, Larsen/Collins/Yin discloses that the at least one audio characteristic includes at least one of a pitch, a rhythm, a tempo, a timbre, a musical key, or a genre [Larsen, para 35-37].
Referring to claim 5, Larsen/Collins/Yin discloses identifying a type of the media content, wherein the type is one of an original, a derivative, a remix, or a modification [Larsen, segment of media item, para 30].
Referring to claim 6, Larsen/Collins/Yin discloses that the media content includes at least one of a video content, image content, or a text content [Larsen, media file selected could be a video that includes audio, para 60].
Referring to claim 7, Larsen/Collins/Yin discloses storing the plurality of structured identity datasets in at least one database [Larsen, database/library, para 67].
Referring to claim 9, Larsen/Collins/Yin discloses: receiving additional media content creation data associated with the creation of the media content; and processing the additional media content event data to extract one or more additional structured identity datasets associated with the creation of the media content [Larsen, plurality of vibe attributes from musical attributes and emotive and acoustic content characteristics are extracted, see Fig 1, element 105, Fig 2, element 203 and corresponding portions of specification; Collins, each individual media content item within the first set of media content items contains at least one time data (that is processed), para 95].
Referring to claim 10, Larsen/Collins/Yin discloses: receiving a query; selecting at least one of the plurality of structured identity datasets; searching through structured identity datasets stored in a database using the query; identifying one or more structured identity datasets stored in the database matching the at least one of the plurality of structured identity datasets selected; and outputting a search result corresponding to the query, wherein the search result is associated with the one or more of the plurality of structured identity datasets [Larsen, query is built and executed from a creator chosen song and segments, vibe attributes for each segment are loaded and aggregated and used in the query, Fig 3 and corresponding portions of specification; output matched results, para 74].
Referring to claim 11, Larsen/Collins/Yin discloses that generating the relational map includes outputting the search result [Larsen, output matched results, para 74; Collins, timeline content collection, Fig 7].
Referring to claim 12, Larsen/Collins/Yin discloses retrieving the search result from the database [Larsen, database is searched for results, para 67].
Referring to claim 13, Larsen/Collins/Yin discloses that the relational map includes data points of at least a subset of the plurality of structured identity datasets positioned according to a chronological order relative to a creation date of the media content [Larsen, time windows of the media through a user interface, para 68-69; search timeline, para 113; Collins, timeline content collection, Fig 7].
Referring to claim 14, Larsen/Collins/Yin discloses that processing the media content event data includes processing the media content event data using a trained machine learning model to identify the plurality of structured identity datasets [Larsen, media search system analyzes video scenes using a machine learning model to associate characteristics of video segments with vibe attributes, para 98, Fig 7, element 703].
Referring to claim 15, Larsen/Collins/Yin discloses updating the trained machine learning model based on feedback associated with the plurality of structured identity datasets [Larsen, machine learning model is trained using supervised learning, para 98].
Referring to claim 18, Larsen/Collins/Yin discloses that the plurality of structured identity datasets includes an identifier of a person associated with the media content [Collins, message sender identifier 422, Fig 4, para 81; live story contributor, para 66] and at least one of a genre, a tempo [Larsen, para 123], a pitch, a type of harmony, a location associated with the media content [Collins, location overlay/geolocation, para 35], metadata associated with the media content [Larsen, para 123], or an event associated with the media content.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsen, in view of Collins, in view of Yin, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0249306 by Allen et al (hereafter Allen).
Referring to claim 8, Larsen/Collins/Yin discloses all of the above claimed subject matter, however remains silent as to generating a source reliability score indicating a reliability of a data source. Allen discloses determining a quality score for received content messages to determine if they include explicit content likelihood [para 70-71; association with content source- quality flag, para 79].
Larsen, Collins, Yin and Allen are analogous art that are directed to the same field of endeavor – analysis of media content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the analysis and characterization of media content in Larsen to include a determination of a quality score of media content taught by Allen because it would achieve predictable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the quality score of Allen further refines the vibe attributes determined by Larsen in the analysis of its audio content.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Laska et al (US 20160316176) directed to: displaying an event timeline with respect to live video feeds and clustering motion event candidate vectors [Abstract; para 13, Fig 5-6, 11D and related portions of specification];
Silverstein et al (US 11037541) directed to: an automated music composition and generation system including a timeline representation of a piece of digital music to be automatically composed [entire document].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. 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.
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/C.M.S//AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights