DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. The four eligible categories of invention include: (1) process which is an act, or a series of acts or steps, (2) machine which is an concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices, (3) manufacture which is an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery, and (4) composition of matter which is all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids. MPEP 2106(I).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claims in light of the specification encompasses transitory signals. Transitory signals are not within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. non-statutory subject matter). See MPEP 2106(I). "In the state of the art, transitory signals are commonplace as a medium for transmitting computer instruction and thus, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the scope of a ‘a computer readable storage medium’ covers a signal per se.”
However, claims directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium may qualify as a manufacture and forward the claims to a patent-eligible subject matter. MPEP 2106(I). This rejection can be overcome by limiting the claims to a non-transitory embodiment and, more specifically, by amending the claims to recite a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium….”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagaraja et al. (US PG PUB 2021/0157843 hereinafter referred as Nagaraja).
Regarding claim 1, Nagaraja discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a selection of a video to play (see figure 6 step 604 receive request to play video; see also paragraph 0062);
obtaining the video and metadata associated with the video, wherein the metadata includes sticker information for a sticker with content and a placement of the sticker in the video (see figure 6, see paragraph 0062 the video and metadata are received; see paragraph 0061, the metadata provides information for generating the video (214) (see step 614 generate video); the metadata indicates media and/or analytical data; see figure 3 image generation workflow to generate image file 212; see paragraph 0052 metadata defines which media the video is made of; see also paragraph 0054);
dynamically regenerating the sticker with the content based on the sticker information (see paragraph 0063 if it is determined that the video is to be updated; one or more images are generated; see also figure 3; figure 6 steps 610-612 and paragraphs 0040-0041);
placing the sticker in an overlay over the video based on the sticker information (see figure 4 and paragraph 0063 LiveVideo Creator generates the video 214’ based on image data 212’; see figure 6 generate video (step 614); see paragraph 0049 rendering visualization; embedded content; see Listing 1 <div> which specifies position); and
providing video output with the video and the overlay with the sticker for presentation on a display, wherein the content presented in the sticker is dynamically updated with changing content obtained from a datastore as the video plays (see figure 6 step 616, play video, paragraph 0063 video played within a video player; see paragraph 0056 if the metadata indicates one or more data sources, the LiveVideo creator requests one or more updated images from the offline engine and image generator 202).
Regarding claim 2, Nagaraja discloses dynamically regenerating the sticker with the content further includes: obtaining the content from the datastore in response to receiving the selection of the video to play (see figures 3, 4, paragraphs 0040, 0045 and 0055-0056).
Regarding claim 3, Nagaraja discloses the datastore is a third-party knowledge source of data (see figure 3, paragraphs 0024, 0045 and 0056).
Regarding claim 4, Nagaraja discloses the content presented in the sticker is updated from the datastore after the video is published to a video platform for consumption (see figure 6, paragraphs 0055-0056 and 0063).
Regarding claim 5, Nagaraja discloses the sticker information includes one or more of content for the sticker, a time in the video to place the sticker, a size of the sticker, a rotation of the sticker, a scale of the sticker, or a theme of the sticker (see paragraphs 0045-0052).
Regarding claim 6, Nagaraja discloses receiving an interaction with the sticker; and presenting additional content in response to the interaction (see paragraphs 0055-0058 and 0068).
Regarding claim 7, Nagaraja discloses the interaction occurs within an interface of a video platform (see paragraphs 0057-0058).
Regarding claim 8, Nagaraja discloses the interaction is answering questions about the video presented in the sticker (see paragraphs 0022, 0040-0041 and also 0055).
Regarding claim 9, Nagaraja discloses the interaction is loading a webpage included in the content by selecting a link to the webpage in the content (see paragraphs 0022 and 0040).
Regarding claim 10, Nagaraja discloses the sticker is a live sticker that dynamically updates the content in the live sticker as the video is playing in response to the content changing (see paragraphs 0040-0041, 0063 and figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, Nagaraja discloses the sticker has different content when the video is played as compared to when the video is created (see figure 6 and paragraphs 0062-0063).
Regarding claim 12, Nagaraja discloses the content provides additional information related to the video while the video is playing (see paragraphs 0041-0043).
Regarding claim 13, the limitation of claim 13 can be found in claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 13 is analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above. It is also noted that Nagaraja discloses a processor, memory and instruction stored in the memory as claimed (see claim 15).
Claims 14-18 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claims 2, 4-6 and 10 respectively above.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation of claim 19 can be found in claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 19 is analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above. It is also noted that Nagaraja discloses a computer readable storage medium storing instructions as claimed (see claim 15).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 10 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN SHIBRU whose telephone number is (571)272-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, THAI TRAN can be reached at 571 272 7382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HELEN SHIBRU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484 January 22, 2026