DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as nonstatutory under the following analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a statutory category? Yes.
The claim is directed to a method of compiling and transmitting data, which is a process within the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A prong one: Does the claim recite a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? Yes.
The recited steps of representing metadata and URIs amounts to compiling data in a file—an abstract idea. There is no interaction between devices, or actions that are taken based on the file, nor is there any specific technique for generating the file.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application? No.
The additional elements are: 1) storing the file on a computer and 2) making it available over a network (again, no specifics are recited with respect to this step). These steps are considered to be insignificant extra solution activity and do not integrate the abstract idea into the practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e. “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception? No.
The additional elements when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because generically storing and transmitting data, recited at a high level of generality, is well understood, routine and conventional. Official notice is taken that this activity is insignificant, adding nothing inventive beyond the abstract idea of compiling metadata in a file.
For these reasons, the claim is nonstatutory and is rejected on that basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The recited phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hunt, US 2003/0084441 in view of Yrusky et al., US 8,676,900, and further in view of Toyama et al., US 2006/0233531.
Regarding claim 1, Hunt teaches a method and system for creating video and audio content to be subsequently viewed over a network, said method comprising:
representing source identifiers of one or more media files accessed over the network as uniform resource indicators corresponding to the location of said media files on said network [ITV info comprises URLs/links, i.e. identifiers corresponding to the location of media, paras. 22, 28-30];
representing timing aspects of at least one said media file, including the portions that are and are not to be presented as part said subsequent playback, as at least strings of characters comprising a system of tags and at least numerical values indicating at least the point within said media file at which playback is to begin and the point within said media file at which playback is to end [start time, timing information, paras. 22, 28; individual playlist start times (which also show the point at which the previous program ends, Figs. 3, 4, para. 54];
creating a master file containing all of said representations relating to said video and audio content [ITV data, e.g. paras. 22, 28];
assigning a uniform resource indicator to said master file [XML/URL, para. 22];
storing said file on a computer attached to said network [ITV server system 34, Figs. 1, 3, para. 32]; and
making said file accessible over said network by one or more viewers of said content [via URL, para. 34].
Hunt does not teach transitional effects. Yrusky teaches representing at least a transitional aspect of how a plurality of said media files are to be presented, such as a fade-in or a fade-out, as at least a string of characters comprising a system of tags and at least an alphanumeric value indicating at least a parameter describing the transitional effect to be presented [Figs. 23, 25B-D, col. 34, ll. 33-35; col. 35; cols. 36-37, ll. 44-20]. Adding transitions such as fade in/out to Hunt's system would have been obvious at the time of invention, providing less abrupt transitions between clips, and between programming and ads. XML is used by both references [see Hunt cited above and Yrusky, e.g. col. 33, 40-62], suggesting the modification could be readily made, resulting in a more sophisticated presentation of content.
Regarding textual elements, both Yrusky and Hunt teach various textual identifiers, but neither specifically teaches associated timing information as recited. Toyama discloses a subtitle reproduction method including representing at least a textual aspect of said video content, such as a title or subtitle, as at least a string of characters comprising a system of tags and alphanumerical values indicating at least the type of textual element to be presented and the point within said media file at which presentation of said textual aspect is to begin and the point within said media file when presentation of said textual element is to end [Figs. 2-4, 6-9 et. seq.; paras. 46-48, 73-76]. It would have been obvious at the time of invention to include caption and timing information in Hunt’s ITV system, allowing for the synchronized display of subtitles in situations involving hearing impairment or load viewing environments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424