DETAILED ACTION
This Office action has been issued in response to amendment filed April 21, 2026.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. Applicant’s arguments are carefully and respectfully considered and some are persuasive, while others are not. Accordingly, rejections have been removed where arguments were persuasive, but rejections have been maintained where arguments were not persuasive. Also, a new rejection based on the newly added amendments have been set forth. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected and this action has been made FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and arguments directed to 35 USC 103 rejection, presented on 04/21/26 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection presented in this office action.
Objection
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recited the limitations of “facilitating”, “weight to improve”. The terms “facilitating and improve” does not necessary to facilitate or improve all the time. If does not facilitate or improve then the all other steps recited in the claims would not work. Further, amended claims 1, 18 and 15 recited the limitations of “improve an accuracy”. The limitations do not describe how it is improving the accuracy and what constitute an accuracy as recite in the claims. The limitations facilitating, improve and accuracy does not given weight, does not further limit and does not distinguish from the prior art of record. Applicant may delete these claim limitations and amend/rewrite the claim(s) in order to eliminate the claim objections.
Dependent claims are objected for incorporating the same deficiencies of their respective base claims.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill (US 2024/0412542 A1), hereinafter O’Neill in view of Miller et al. (US 2021/0082413 A1), hereinafter Miller.
As for claim 1, O’Neill teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving an identification of a set of communication channels presenting media content (see [0008], e.g., receiving a media content identifier, obtaining the media content based on the received media content identifier);
identifying current media content being presented over the set of communication channels (see [0008], media contact identifier and the media content into scenes based on visual and audio cues, each scene including a series of images) ;
executing a machine-learning model trained to interpret natural language associated with the media content, wherein the machine-learning model generates one or more keywords associated with the media content corresponding to a real-time topic of the current media (see [0065], e.g., machine learning algorithm or artificial intelligence model and the like used to any of a variety of information structures that used by a computing device to perform a computation or evaluate a specific condition, feature, factor, dataset, [0089], medica content include views, likes comments and any tags or keyword associated with the contact. Media contact content used analyze and quantify the public reception and interaction with the media content, [0139], e.g.,
identify objects, logos, emotional expressions, etc. to process audio data, determine, analyzed data with its corresponding timestamp in the video, describe detected elements and their changes at specific time intervals);
defining a……sampling rate based on the one or more keywords, wherein the…..sampling rate determines a frequency in which machine-learning model executes to generate new keywords (see [0089], e.g., engage statistics and any tags or keyword associated with the media content used to analyze and interaction with the media content, [0103], e.g., score with new media content, [0230], machine learning models trained on various audio samples to identify audio component. [0354], e.g., different samples to the media content for review, identify, reused media content, [0368], e.g., analyze the frequency and context in the media content and assign higher importance to the instances repeatedly)
receiving, from a user device, a search query; generating one or more recommended communication channels that are associated with one or more associated keywords…..to the search query; facilitating a presentation of the one or more recommended communication channels on the user device (see [0009], e.g., a convolutional neural network (CNN) model to identify the primary objects, [0010], natural language processing (NLP) technique to covert non-Latin characters in the extracted text, querying the database to identify the ToIs based on the extracted text and the determined object attributes includes querying the database to identify the ToIs based on the extracted text, search and update a ToI knowledge repository, [0089], any tags or keyword associated with the contact, [0162], e.g., facilitate dynamic semantic connections between nodes include tracking association with media content);
receiving an identification of a particular communication channel of the one or more recommended communication channels; and training the machine-learning model using the one or more recommended communication channels and the particular communication channel, wherein training the machine-learning model modifies parameter weights to improve an accuracy of the machine-learning model (see [0065], e.g., machine learning algorithm or artificial intelligence model and the like used to perform a computation or evaluate a specific condition, feature, factor, dataset, [0230], machine learning models trained on various audio samples to identify audio component, [0084], e.g., topic of interest (e.g., recommended) can be used for TV shows, online streaming series, [0099], e.g., weights of many factors based on their relevance and combine them to generate a final contextual distance value that quantitatively represents how closely related two pieces of media content are in context, [0112], e.g., allow and accurate identification of potential brand matches with pertinent set of database entries, [0200], e.g., improve media content strategies, enhance brand engagement, etc., posts on brand channels to increase their visibility and reach (e.g., when the content aligns well with the brand's marketing objectives, etc.)),
O’Neill teaches the claimed invention including the limitations of defining, a sampling rate based on the one or more keywords, to the search query ([0089]). O’Neill do not explicitly teach the limitations of “defining an asynchronous sampling rate based on one of more keywords, one or more associated keywords similar to the search query”. In the same field of endeavor, Miller teaches the limitations of “defining an asynchronous sampling rate based on one of more keywords, one or more associated keywords similar to the search query” (see
[0149], e.g., queries run asynchronously, discover new packages and copy key fields from the package and content to automatically create multiple teasers based on meta-data, targeting, and tagging, [0157], e.g., one or more tags which include key words, phrases, etc., associated with one or more characterizations of or associated with the content of package, [0065]-[0071], e.g., analyze metrics associated with media content data, the media content and packages have statistical analysis, [0144], search queries on packages are identical to the stored filter parameters that power content routing to components).
O’Neill and Miller both references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are from the same field of endeavor, such as sending and receiving media content data using broadcast or communication channel. Searching and storing media content data. Monitoring and reviewing the media content data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Miller’s teaching to O’Neill system to provide viewership metrics in a useful and integrated way. Thus a user can run another separate program from a content management system (CMS) to view such metrics and optimize the content presentation. An integrate CMS capture a potential large consumer base. Also provide an automatic way to control and manage digital rights of various feeds of content (see Miller, [0004]).
As for claim 8,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 1 because claim 8 is a system claim for implementing those steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Miller’s teaching to O’Neill system to provide viewership metrics in a useful and integrated way. Thus a user can run another separate program from a content management system (CMS) to view such metrics and optimize the content presentation. An integrate CMS capture a potential large consumer base. Also provide an automatic way to control and manage digital rights of various feeds of content (see Miller, [0004]).
As for claim 15,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 1 because claim 15 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim for implementing those steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Miller’s teaching to O’Neill system to provide viewership metrics in a useful and integrated way. Thus a user can run another separate program from a content management system (CMS) to view such metrics and optimize the content presentation. An integrate CMS capture a potential large consumer base. Also provide an automatic way to control and manage digital rights of various feeds of content (see Miller, [0004]).
As to claim 2, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
O’Neill and Miller teach:
generating, according to the one or more keywords, a subset of communication channels, wherein the subset of communication channels is associated with a duration of time; after the duration of time, identifying updated current media content being presented over the subset of communication channels; and generating one or more updated keywords associated with the current media content (see O’Neill, [0010], [0090]).
As to claim 3, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
O’Neill and Miller teach:
further comprising: receiving, from the user device, feedback associated with the one or more recommended communication channels; and updating the machine-learning model according to the feedback (see O’Neill, [0105]).
As to claim 4, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
O’Neill and Miller teach:
wherein the machine-learning model was trained using transfer learning (see O’Neill, [0066]).
As to claim 5, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
O’Neill and Miller teach:
wherein the one or more keywords are generated by receiving data from the set of communication channels (see O’Neill, [0087], [0089]).
As to claim 6, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
O’Neill and Miller teach:
wherein the one or more recommended communication channels are further generated based on user data, wherein the user data includes at least a user profile associated with the user device (see O’Neill, [0088]).
As to claim 7, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
O’Neill and Miller teach:
wherein the one or more keywords comprises at least one of a song title, a song categorization, a topic of discussion, a subject matter, names of one or more hosts, original broadcast location of a media source, or title of programming (see O’Neill, [0229]).
Claims 9-14 correspond in scope to claims 2-7 and are similarly rejected.
Claims 16-20 correspond in scope to claims 2-6 and are similarly rejected.
Prior Arts
8. US 11936702, US 20230156058, US 2016329977, US 20240406237, US 12341836, US 20230155707, US 20160029056, US 20150264415, US 20230410130, US 8756101, US 20230410130, US 20220277324, US 20140289000, US 9197915, US 20140282717, these reference also read the claim recited limitation. These references are state of the art at the time of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
9. The examiner suggests, in response to this Office action, support being shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(f)).
10. The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action (see MPEP § 7.96). Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
11. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Daniel A Kuddus whose telephone number is (571) 270-1722. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday 8.00 a.m.-5.30 p.m. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays from 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Boris Gorney can be reached on (571) 270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing 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 the 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.
/DANIEL A KUDDUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
06/29/26
Prosecution Insights