And 4/8Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to Application filed on December 31, 2025. Claims 1-15 and 18-22 are pending. Claims 1-4, 9-11, 13-15, 19 and 20 are amended. Claims 16 and 17 are cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Referring the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20 as previously presented, Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the timeline that is generated represents a new kind of file that enables a computer to do things it could not do before and represents a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory and is not recitation of an abstract idea. However Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner submits that the claim does not recite a file or an improvement that is realized through its generation and updating. The generating of a timeline of media content that is chronologically sorted and updating thereof is considered a mental step because a person can perform these steps in the human mind or using pen and paper. As such, these limitations are interpreted as reciting abstract subject matter.
Applicant argues that the claims recite a practical application because they recite a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information. However this is not persuasive. The mere display of sorted information that is updated in accordance to a user’s interaction with a user interface is considered insignificant post-solution activity. In this case, the claims do not recite a display of the timeline-but an updating, which could be achieved in the human mind or using pen and paper. As such, the claims do not recite a judicial exception.
Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception because they recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished by the generation of the timeline of data elements. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and states as above, that this limitation is a mental step and does not teach significantly more than the judicial exception.
As such, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 1/21/2026 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, media content creation data associated with creation of a media content, including at least a creation date of the media content;
analyzing the media content creation data to identify a plurality of data elements associated with the creation of the media content;
generating a timeline that arranges the plurality of data elements according to a chronological order relative to the creation date of the media content; and
updating the timeline based on at least one interaction with the interactive user interface.
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 “analyzing the media content creation data to identify a plurality of data elements associated with the creation of the media content” is a mental step. A user can inspect data in order to select desired criteria to use in the creation of a media content. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Furthermore, the limitation “generating a timeline that arranges the plurality of data elements according to a chronological order relative to the creation date of the media content” is also a mental step. A user can generate an ordered timeline of elements that are sorted according to a desired parameter- in this case- a chronological order mentally or using pen and paper. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “updating the timeline based on at least one interaction” is also a mental step. The user can modify the drawn out timeline based on user desired criteria. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the limitation “receiving media content creation data associated with creation of a media content, including at least a creation date of the media content”. This limitation is an additional element and is 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”, 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” 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), "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 creation data associated with the creation of the media content; and analyzing the additional media content creation data to extract one or more additional data elements 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 “analyzing the additional media content creation data to extract one or more additional data elements associated with the creation of the media content” 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 creation data associated with the creation of the media content”.
These receiving steps are additional elements that further define the “receiving of media content creation 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 timeline includes at least a subset of the plurality of data elements positioned according to the chronological order relative to the creation date of the media content;
(claim 14) wherein analyzing the media content creation data to identify the plurality of data elements includes processing the media content creation data using a trained machine learning model to identify the plurality of data elements;
(claim 15) updating the trained machine learning model based on feedback associated with the plurality of data elements;
(claim 18) wherein the plurality of data elements includes 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, an event associated with the media content, or an identifier of a person 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 creation data to identify the plurality of data elements” 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 “wherein the timeline includes at least a subset of the plurality of data elements positioned according to the chronological order relative to the creation date of the media content” further defines the mental step of “generating a timeline..according to a chronological order” step in claim 1. As such, this limitation is also a mental step that can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “updating the trained machine learning model based on feedback associated with the plurality of data elements” is also a mental step. A user can mentally perform this step by remembering prior user selections and performing analysis on the data based on the prior user selections. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “wherein the plurality of data elements includes 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, an event associated with the media content, or an identifier of a person associated with the media content” further defines the mental step of “analyzing the media content creation 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, Claim 14 recites 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.
Claims 5, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 18 do not recite any other additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception 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.
Claims 5, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 18 do not recite any additional elements that would provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 data elements 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 data elements 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 data elements; searching through the plurality of data elements stored in a database using the query; identifying data elements stored in the database matching the at least one of the plurality of data elements selected; and outputting a search result corresponding to the query, wherein the search result is associated with one or more of the plurality of data elements;
(claim 11) wherein generating the timeline 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 data elements” and “identifying data elements stored in the database matching the at least one of the plurality of data elements 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 one or more of the plurality of data elements”, “searching through the plurality of data elements stored in a database using the query” and “generating the timeline 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, and further in view of US 2022/0187959 by Collins et al (hereafter Collins).
Referring to claim 1, Larsen discloses a method for media processing [Abstract], the method comprising:
receiving, through an interactive user interface, media content creation data associated with a creation of media content, including at least a time window 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];
analyzing the media content creation data to identify a plurality of data elements 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 a timeline that arranges the plurality of data elements [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: receiving a creation date of the media content as user input; that the aggregated content is a timeline that arranges the plurality of data elements according to a chronological order relative to the creation date of the media content; and updating the timeline based on at least one interaction with the interactive user interface.
Collins teaches capturing and generating media content that 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]. Collins also teaches user inputs including a current time during a message creation process that is used as a filter for presenting overlays within the timeline [para 52; Fig 5-6 and corresponding portions of specification]. Collins also teaches that a modification function is executed on the timeline content collection 714 upon a user applying a user gesture on the overlay edit icon 716 [para 119].
Larsen and Collin 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 user input of time windows of song segments with the input of generation date of media content within the created message was captured/generated, as in Collins, and to modify the aggregation of the vibe attributes and/or characterizations in a list form in Larsen to include the timeline with chronologically ordered media content that is modified in response to user input, as in Collins because it would achieve predictable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make these modifications because the date and time of generation further refines the time windows criterion of Larsen. Furthermore, the display of the timeline of ordered media content is a type of aggregated list of content and further defines the aggregated list of attributes in Larsen.
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 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 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 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 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 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 discloses storing the plurality of data elements in at least one database [Larsen, database/library, para 67].
Referring to claim 9, Larsen/Collins discloses: receiving additional media content creation data associated with the creation of the media content; and analyzing the additional media content creation data to extract one or more additional data elements 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 discloses: receiving a query; selecting at least one of the plurality of data elements; searching through the plurality of data elements stored in a database using the query; identifying data elements stored in the database matching the at least one of the plurality of data elements selected; and outputting a search result corresponding to the query, wherein the search result is associated with one or more of the plurality of data elements [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 discloses that generating the timeline includes outputting the search result [Larsen, output matched results, para 74; Collins, timeline content collection, Fig 7].
Referring to claim 12, Larsen/Collins discloses retrieving the search result from the database [Larsen, database is searched for results, para 67].
Referring to claim 13, Larsen/Collins discloses that the timeline includes at least a subset of the plurality of data elements positioned according to the chronological order relative to the 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 discloses processing the media content creation data using a trained machine learning model to identify the plurality of data elements [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 discloses updating the trained machine learning model based on feedback associated with the plurality of data elements [Larsen, machine learning model is trained using supervised learning, para 98].
Referring to claim 18, Larsen/Collins discloses that the plurality of data elements includes at least one of a genre, a tempo [Larsen, para 123], a pitch, a type of harmony, a location associated with the media content, metadata associated with the media content [Larsen, para 123], an event associated with the media content, or an identifier of a person associated with the media content.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsen, in view of Collins, 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 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 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:
Yin et al (US 20180005131) directed to: creating a timeline summarization of social media content items that are selected based on temporal information (time/date at which content was posted or submitted) [para 83; Fig 3-4 and related portions of specification].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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