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 .
This action is in response to application 19/026,207 filed 1/16/2025.
Claims 2-21 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting Analysis Summary
Instant application US 19/026,207 claim benefits to U.S. Patent No. 12,238,350, U.S. Patent No. 11,877,020, U.S. Patent No. 11,665,383, and U.S. Patent No. 10,735,786. The Examiner determines that double patent rejection is not warranted for U.S. Patent No. 12,238,350, U.S. Patent No. 11,877,020, and U.S. Patent No. 11,665,383.
U.S. Patent No. 12,238,350 independent claim 73 is directed primarily to user interface presentation, including specific display formatting and layout requirements for presenting titles, genres, and contribution scores. Instant application US 19/026,207 independent claim 2, by contrast, is directed to backend database architecture and search processing. The instant claim does not require the UI formatting limitations of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,350, and U.S. Patent No. 12,238,350 does not require the structured database limitations recited in instant claim 2. The claims are directed to distinct aspects of the system (frontend presentation vs. backend data structure/search processing) and are therefore patently distinct. Accordingly, an obviousness-type double patenting rejection is not warranted over U.S. Patent No. 12,238,350.
U.S. Patent No. 11,665,383 independent claim 73 requires a specific scene-based methodology for calculating contribution scores, including duration-based proportional analysis. Instant claim 2 does not recite or require this scoring methodology, and instead assumes the existence of genre/score pairs and focuses on storage and search result generation. Conversely, U.S. Patent No. 11,665,383 does not require the structured database architecture limitations recited in instant claim 2. Because each claim requires material limitations not required by the other, they are patentably distinct. Accordingly, an obviousness-type double patenting rejection is not required over U.S. Patent No. 11,665,383.
U.S. Patent No. 11,877,020 independent claim 73 is directed to a search and ranking method that includes receiving a search query identifying an actor and a genre, accessing media content items in a database, accessing respective genre contribution scores for each media content item, and generating identifiers of media content items ranked according to their respective genre contribution scores. US 19/026,207 independent claim 2, by contrast, is directed to structured database architecture and storage of actor identifiers and genre/score pairs within data structures, and to generating search results based on analysis of the stored data structures. Instant claim 2 does not require ranking of results for display as recited in U.S. Patent No. 11,877,020, and U.S. Patent No. 11,877,020 does not require the structured database limitations recited in instant claim 2. Because each claim requires material limitations not required by the other, the claims are patentably distinct. Accordingly, an obviousness-type double patenting rejection is not required over U.S. Patent No. 11,877,020.
It is determined that an obviousness-type double patenting rejection is only required over U.S. U.S. Patent No. 10,735,786 for reasons provided under Double Patenting (see below).
Double Patenting
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 double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 reference 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. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Instant Application 19/026,207 independent claims 2, 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claims 1, 14, 40, 51 of U.S. Patent No. 10,735,786 in combination with dependent claims (see table below). Instant Application 19/026,207 independent claims 12, 12 are not patentably distinct from independent claims 1, 14, 40, 51 of U.S. Patent No. 10,735,786 which broadly claims searchable actor-genre contribution scores for electronic searching and ordering. Instant Application 19/026,207 independent claims 2, 12 implements the same actor-genre contribution score system recited in the parent using structured database architecture and routine search-processing steps. The additional database architecture and query-processing limitations merely implement the searchable actor-genre scoring system already recited in the parent claims and do not define a patentably distinct invention.
Instant Application 19/026,207
Parent Pat 10,735,786
Not Patentably Distinct
Independent Claims 2, 12:
storing, on at least one non-transitory memory device of at least one server associated with a media delivery service, a database comprising a plurality of data structures, wherein each data structure of the plurality of data structures is associated with a respective media asset offered by the media delivery service, and wherein the each data structure of the plurality of data structures comprises:
a respective list of a plurality of actor identifiers associated with the respective media asset; and
a respective set of genre/score pairs for each actor identifier of the respective list; and
receiving, by at least one server associated with the media delivery service, a search query comprising at least one of an actor identifier or a genre;
generating at least one search
result based on: (a) the search query, and (b) analysis of the data structure; and
causing an output of the at least one search result.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 3, 13
Claims 4, 14
Claims 5, 15
Claims 6, 16
Claims 7, 17
Claims 8, 18
Claims 9, 19
Claims 10, 20
Claims 11, 21
Independent Claims 1, 14, 40, 51:
storing the scores in electronically searchable form wherein each score is associated with the actor and one of the genres, so as to thereby facilitate ordering results of electronic searches of the content according to the degrees to which the actor contributed to the genres.
for an actor and each of a plurality of genres of the content, generating a score corresponding to a degree to which the actor contributed to one of the genres in the content; and (scores are associated with the actor).
… each score is associated with the actor and one of the genres… (i.e., actor-genre score pair stored in searchable form).
… facilitate ordering results of electronic searches of the content … (searches are performed using the stored actor-genre scores).
… facilitate ordering results of electronic searches … according to the degrees to which the actor contributed … (search results are generated/ordered based on the stored scores).
… ordering results of electronic searches … (implies providing/outputting ordered search results to the requester).
Dependent Claims:
Claim 12
Claim 1
Claim 13
Claim 13
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 6
Analysis:
Parent claims broadly require storing actor-genre contribution scores in electronically searchable form for use in electronic searches. Instant claim 2 recites storing those same actor-genre scores within structured data structures in a database. The database structuring represents an implementation detail of the searchable score storage already required by the parent.
Parent expressly generates scores for an actor relative to genres of content. Instant claim 2’s recitation of actor identifiers per media asset merely reflects how those same actor-genre scores are organized within a database and does not introduce a patentably distinct concept.
Parent requires that each score be associated with an actor and a genre. Instant claim 2 explicitly stores genre/score pairs per actor identifiers. This is the same actor-genre score association recited in the parent, implemented in structured form.
Parent facilitates electronic searches using the stored actor-genre scores. Instant claim 2 recites receiving a search query identifying an actor or genre. The search-query limitation is inherent to, and an obvious use of, the parent’s searchable score system.
Parent orders search results according to stored contribution scores. Instant claim 2 generates search results based on analysis of stored data structures containing those scores. Using the stored scores to generate search results is the same function use contemplated by the parent.
Parent’s ordering of electronic search results necessarily results in provision of those ordered results. Instant claim 2 explicitly recites outputting the search results. The output step is an inherent and obvious consequence of performing the parent’s ranked search.
Instant claim 3 defines the structure/content of at least one search result (media asset list + genre/score pairs). Parent claim 12 likewise concerns electronic searching and retrieving/displaying search results based on associated scores; the instant limitation is an implementation detail of the same search-results output and is not patentably distinct.
Both concern ordering of search results based on actor-genre scoring. Instant claim 4 is a specific ordering implementation of the broader ordering functionality recited in parent claim 1. This is not a patentability distinct functional difference.
Instant claim 5 states each genre/score pair measures degree of actor contribution to each genre within each media asset. Parent claim 13 similarly ranks/presents content ordered according to the degree to which the actor contributed to the genre; the limitations correspond in substance and are not patentably distinct.
Instant claim 6 ties each genre/score pair to actor contribution in at least one scene associated with the genre. Parent 13 already orders content by degree of actor contribution to the genre; scene-level contribution is an inherent/obvious granularity of the same contribution metric and is not patentably distinct.
Instant claim 7 determines a genre/score pair at least in part from (i) scene duration and (ii) actor appearance time, using their proportion. Parent claim 2 likewise determines score according to a proportion of actor appearance time to a content-duration measure; the proportional time-based scoring corresponds directly and is not patentably distinct.
Instant claim 8 determines a genre/score pair at least in part according to number of words uttered by the actor in a scene. Parent claim 3 similarly determines score according to the number of words uttered by the actor within relevant content portions; the scoring basis is the same and not patentably distinct.
Instant claim 9 determines volume of a scene exceeds a predetermined volume. Parent claim 4 likewise identifies portions having volume greater than a predetermined volume for scoring. The volume-threshold concept corresponds, and the instant limitation is not patentably distinct from the parent’s volume-based identification.
Instant claim 10 recites each genre is one of action, comedy, drama, and thriller. Parent claim 5 recites action and thriller. The parent’s genres are encompassed within the instant set; selecting/including additional known genres is an insubstantial variant within the same genre-based scoring/searching framework and is not patentably distinct.
Instant claim 11 determines an award won by the actor and determines the genre/score pair based at least in part on the award. Parent claim 6 likewise determines an aw2ard and adjusts the score in response. Both use the award as an input to the score determination; therefore, the claims are not patentably distinct.
Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or 35 USC§ 112 (pre-A/A), Sixth Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 12, 17-19 and 21 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph by using the language "configured to”. A review of the specification shows that the following appear to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) limitation:
Claim 12: Limitation “input/output circuitry” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “configured to” coupled with functional language “receive”, “generate”, and “cause” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claims 12, 17, 18, 19, 21: Limitation “control circuitry” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “configured to” coupled with functional language “generate”, “cause”, and “determine” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Following the 3-prong analysis test (see MPEP 2181 (I)):
A) "input/output circuitry” and “control circuitry” are generic placeholders that do not necessarily possess a specific structural meaning - where “receive”, “generate”, “cause”, and “determine” may reasonably be interpreted to cover 'software' generators and processors;
B) the generic place holders are modified by functional language as above, linked by the linking phrases "configured to"; and
C) the above generic placeholders are not further modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 8 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification finds corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
input/output circuitry – The specification discloses that the system includes hardware components configured to transmit, receive, and present data. In particular, communications network interface [para.0039], input devices [para.0035], output devices [0036]. These components are described as being configured to send and receive data and to interface with users or external systems. The specification further explains that such circuitry may be implemented using standard electronic communication hardware and interface modules. Accordingly, the corresponding structure for the claimed “input/output circuitry” includes communications network interface, input devices, output devices.
control circuitry – The specification discloses that system control and operational functions are performed by one or more microprocessors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors, programmable logic devices, field-programmable gate arrays FPGAs), application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), etc., and may include a multi-core processor or supercomputer [para.0031]. The specification further discloses memory], control logic implemented in hardware and/or software, and firmware or program modules executed by the processor [para.0031]. The specification explains that the processor executes stored instructions to perform the various operations. Thus, the corresponding structure for the claimed “control circuitry” includes one or more processors configured to execute instructions.
According, the specification provides sufficient structural support for each claimed circuitry.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., Pub No US 2008/0126303 (hereafter Park) and further in view SHEN et al., Pub No US 2015/0331866 (hereafter SHEN).
Regarding Claim 2, Park discloses a method comprising:
storing, on at least one non-transitory memory device of at least one server associated with a media delivery service [FIG.1, para.0032: Discloses an exemplary system (element 10 - a media delivery service) comprising a server (element 70), computer (element 50 – contains memory) and a database store (element 100 – memory). Further discloses storing profile data regarding media preferences of users. The server (element 70) processes media files.], a database comprising a plurality of data structures [para.0006: Discloses the server is communicatively coupled to a database containing media content items, as well as metadata (a plurality of data structures) relating to the media content items.], wherein each data structure of the plurality of data structures is associated with a respective media asset offered by the media delivery service [para.0006: Discloses the metadata relating (associated) to the media content items (media asset). Thus, discloses server plus database storing media content items; under BRI, database entries/records for each media content item correspond to plurality of data structures associated with respective media assets.], and wherein the each data structure of the plurality of data structures comprises:
a respective list of a plurality of actor identifiers associated with the respective media asset [para.0006: Discloses metadata relating to media content may include, for example, data identifying the media content, such as title, characters, plot, genre, crew, actors, ratings, reviews and other media content metadata. Actors are explicitly part of metadata for a media content item; under BRI, metadata “actors” corresponds to actor identifiers associated with the media asset.]; and
receiving, by at least one server associated with the media delivery service, a search query comprising at least one of an actor identifier or a genre [para.0006: Discloses the client device communicates the search terms over a network to a server. Thus, teaches receiving search terms at a server. Under BRI, search terms specifying actor and/or genre corresponds to the claimed query.];
generating at least one search result based on: (a) the search query, and (b) analysis of the data structure [para.0007: Discloses the server searches the database for media content items on the basis of the search query. Thus, teaching generating results by searching the database on the query; under BRI, searching the stored metadata/records constitutes ‘analysis of the data structure.’; and para.0043: Discloses the data store (element 100) performs a matching AND search (analysis) for movie data (returning matches that contain all the terms in a given query), and a matching OR search for person data (returning matches that contain any query terms in a given query), which may be an actor, director, other cast member, etc.]; and
causing an output of the at least one search result [para.0007: Discloses ranked search results are returned (causing an output) to the client device; and FIG(s).14-20, para.0092-0098: Discloses screen shots of search results.].
Although Park discloses the server may rank results from the search query in accordance with various parameters, such as item relevance against the search query, an explicit rating (a rating specifically assigned to a media
content item or some aspect of media content by the searcher), a predicted rating (an expected preference of the searcher to the media content item or some aspect of media content, which is calculated by the server on the basis of preference information in one or more user profiles), a global, community or third party rating, other parameters, or combinations of these parameters; Park does not explicitly disclose a respective set of genre/score pairs for each actor identifier of the respective list; However, in analogous art, SHEN discloses a search system that determine weights for metrics, wherein the weights are based in part on the type of entity included in the search. The search system may determine a score by combining the metrics and the weights. The search system may rank search results based on the score [ABSTRACT, para(s). 0032-0034]. The reference necessarily associates each genre with a computed value in order to rank or display results. The association of a genre identifier with its computed value constitutes the claimed genre/score pair. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Park with this feature, as taught by SHEN in order to yield predictable result such as improving relevance ranking [SHEN: para.0001].
Regarding Claim 12, Park discloses a system comprising:
storage circuitry [FIG.8, para(s).0036, 0043: Discloses a data store (element 100 – storage circuitry) that stores data and performs matching/searching.] configured to:
store, on at least one non-transitory memory device of at least one server associated with a media delivery service [FIG.1, para.0032: Discloses an exemplary system (element 10 - a media delivery service) comprising a server (element 70), computer (element 50 – contains memory) and a database store (element 100 – memory). Further discloses storing profile data regarding media preferences of users. The server (element 70) processes media files.], a database comprising a plurality of data structures [para.0006: Discloses the server is communicatively coupled to a database containing media content items, as well as metadata (a plurality of data structures) relating to the media content items.], wherein each data structure of the plurality of data structures is associated with a respective media asset offered by the media delivery service [para.0006: Discloses the metadata relating (associated) to the media content items (media asset). Thus, discloses server plus database storing media content items; under BRI, database entries/records for each media content item correspond to plurality of data structures associated with respective media assets.], and wherein the each data structure of the plurality of data structures comprises:
a respective list of a plurality of actor identifiers associated with the respective media asset [para.0006: Discloses metadata relating to media content may include, for example, data identifying the media content, such as title, characters, plot, genre, crew, actors, ratings, reviews and other media content metadata. Actors are explicitly part of metadata for a media content item; under BRI, metadata “actors” corresponds to actor identifiers associated with the media asset.]; and
input/output circuitry [FIG.1, para.0032: Discloses a computer (element 50 – performs I/O). Also, a network is disclosed (element 60).; and para.0032: Discloses different devices in communication (input/output) over the network (element 60).]. configured to:
receive, by at least one server associated with the media delivery service, a search query comprising at least one of an actor identifier or a genre [para.0006: Discloses the client device communicates the search terms over a network to a server. Thus, teaches receiving search terms at a server. Under BRI, search terms specifying actor and/or genre corresponds to the claimed query.]; and
control circuitry configured to:
generate at least one search result based on: (a) the search query, and (b) analysis of the data structure [para.0007: Discloses the server searches the database for media content items on the basis of the search query. Thus, teaching generating results by searching the database on the query; under BRI, searching the stored metadata/records constitutes ‘analysis of the data structure.’; and para.0043: Discloses the data store (element 100) performs a matching AND search (analysis) for movie data (returning matches that contain all the terms in a given query), and a matching OR search for person data (returning matches that contain any query terms in a given query), which may be an actor, director, other cast member, etc.]; and
wherein the input/output circuitry is further configured to:
cause an output of the at least one search result [para.0007: Discloses ranked search results are returned (causing an output) to the client device; and FIG(s).14-20, para.0092-0098: Discloses screen shots of search results.].
Although Park discloses the server may rank results from the search query in accordance with various parameters, such as item relevance against the search query, an explicit rating (a rating specifically assigned to a media
content item or some aspect of media content by the searcher), a predicted rating (an expected preference of the searcher to the media content item or some aspect of media content, which is calculated by the server on the basis of preference information in one or more user profiles), a global, community or third party rating, other parameters, or combinations of these parameters; Park does not explicitly disclose a respective set of genre/score pairs for each actor identifier of the respective list; However, in analogous art, SHEN discloses a search system that determine weights for metrics, wherein the weights are based in part on the type of entity included in the search. The search system may determine a score by combining the metrics and the weights. The search system may rank search results based on the score [ABSTRACT, para(s). 0032-0034]. The reference necessarily associates each genre with a computed value in order to rank or display results. The association of a genre identifier with its computed value constitutes the claimed genre/score pair. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Park with this feature, as taught by SHEN in order to yield predictable result such as improving relevance ranking [SHEN: para.0001].
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., Pub No US 2008/0126303 (hereafter Park) and further in view SHEN et al., Pub No US 2015/0331866 (hereafter SHEN) and further in view Ehmann et al., Pat No US 10,129,314 (hereafter Ehmann).
Regarding Claim(s) 3 (and 13), the combined teachings of Park and SHEN discloses the method of claim 2 (12), and Park further discloses wherein the at least one search result comprises:
a list of one or more media assets associated with the actor identifier in the search query [para.0032: Discloses searching of media content; and para(s).0037-0039, 0041: Discloses identifying content items based on metadata including actors associated with those items; and para,0043: Discloses receiving a search query and retrieves matching items using metadata fields such as actor information (actor name = actor identifier); and para.0040: Discloses generating and presenting a result set of media content items (a list of one or more media assets).]; and
the combination does not explicitly disclose a respective list of one or more genre/score pairs for each media asset of the respective list of media assets. However, in analogous art, Ehmann discloses a system that analyzes each media item independently and determines a set of media feature associated with the media item (FIG.4, col.14 lines 15-24). Ehmann discloses that the determination of features include genre for a media item (col.7 lines 28-35). Each estimated media feature is associated with a confidence score. The set of media items with the estimated media features is provided to one or more experts for expert analysis (col.2 lines 10-12). For each media item of the set of media items, a set of media features based on the identified correlations between the audio content features and the plurality of media features is estimated. Each estimated media feature is associated with a confidence score (col.2 lines 5-12). A collection of (genre, confidence score) entries constitutes a s list of genre/score pairs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Park and SHEN with this feature, as taught by Ehmann in order to yield predictable result such as providing enhanced relevance of media content provided to users (Ehmann: col.1 lines 11-12).
Claims 4, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., Pub No US 2008/0126303 (hereafter Park) and further in view SHEN et al., Pub No US 2015/0331866 (hereafter SHEN) and further in view Ehmann et al., Pat No US 10,129,314 (hereafter Ehmann) and further in view LAWRENCE LAM, Pub No US 2012/0173521 (hereafter LAM).
Regarding Claim 4 (and 14), the combined teachings of Park, SHEN and Ehmann disclose the method of claim 3 (13), Although Ehmann teaches for each media item, a set (i.e., list) of (feature, confidence score) pairs is generated (see claims 3, 13), the combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the genre identified in the search query is listed first in each respective list of genre/score pairs for each media asset (emphasis on what is not taught by the combination). The combination does not disclose ordering the genre list based on a search query. However, in analogous art, LAM discloses a method for dynamically ordering facets (i.e., genre, actor, …) for search result presentation [FIG.3, para.0039]. A query is received. Next, as indicated at block 312, a plurality of facets that pertain to the query is determined. A facet ordering is then dynamically generated, as indicated at block 314, the facet ordering including at least a portion of the plurality of facets determined to pertain to the query. As indicated at block 316, search results arranged in accordance with the facet ordering are presented. The genre list is itself a list of attributes. LAM teaches ordering attributes based on query relevance. Applying LAM’s query-based ordering technique to the genre list constitutes a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Park, SHEN and Ehmann with this feature, as taught by LAM in order to yield predictable result such as providing improved relevance, enhancing usability, predictable variation, and applying known ordering technique to known list (LAM: para.0001).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-11 and 15-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 5 and 15 are indicated as allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the limitation that each genre/score pair measures a degree of contribution of each actor associated with actor identifier to each genre within the media asset. The applied references collectively teach genre classification, confidence scoring of media features, metadata-based ranking, and actor identification. However, none of the references, either alone or in combination, discloses or render obvious a system in which a genre/score pair specifically measures an actor’s degree of contribution to a particular genre within the same media asset. In particular, the prior art does not teach or suggest computing or deriving a metric that reflects how much a specific actor contributes to a specific genre classification within a single media item. The cited references disclose genre confidence scores at the media-asset level and actor-related metadata or ranking factors, but they do not disclose a cross-dimensional analysis linking actor contribution to genre scoring within the media asset as required by claims 5 and 15. Accordingly, the limitation requiring that each genre/score pair measure a degree of contribution of each actor to each genre within the media asset is not taught or suggested by the prior art of record. For at least this reason, claims 5 and 15 are allowable over the applied references. Claims 6-11 and 16-21 depend (directly or indirectly) from claim 5 and/or 15, therefore, claims 6-11 and 16-21 are allowable for at least the reasons set forth for claims 5 and 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tamer Safwat Aziz Eskander (US 2013/0086498) – Discloses plurality of media items may be associated with a unique movie and may also be associated with a set of attribute scores corresponding to various attributes of the associated unique film [para.0022]. Media items may have associated attribute scores for various properties including genre attributes such as comedy levels, action levels, drama and suspense levels. Other properties, such as actor presence, may indicate the frequency of screen time for particular actors or characters in a particular media work. Other metadata such as date of release, associated studio, associated director, and many other associated properties may also be utilized as the basis for attribute scores [para.0030].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL OCAK whose telephone number is (571) 272-2774. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/ADIL OCAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426