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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on 08 February 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN202411008601 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings fail to satisfy the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84.
The drawings fail to satisfy 37 CFR 1.84(f) in that the drawings are not on submitted in the approved paper sizes of DIN size A4 or 8.5 by 11 inches. Additionally, the drawings all fail to satisfy 37 CFR 1.84(l) and (p)(3) as the size of the various characters/letters in the drawings are not of sufficient height. Furthermore, Figure 5 fails to satisfy 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) that require drawings to be in black and white.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
EXAMINER’S NOTE: It is noted that two separate files appear to have been submitted on 05 February 2025, one that is 80.6KB in size and the other that is 83.6KB in size. It is unclear which file should be in use as the Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt of 05 February 2025 only lists a single pdf file of Figures measuring 82KB.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the concept of determining a live play-by-play update, which is a Mental Process that could be performed in a Human Mind. Following the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines, we analyze the claims:
STEP 1: IS THE CLAIM TO A PROCESS, MACHINE, MANUFACTURE, OR COMPOSITION OF MATTER?
YES. Claims 1-5 are directed to a Process. Claims 6-10 are directed to a Machine.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: DOES THE CLAIM RECITE AN ABSTRACT IDEA, LAW OF NATURE, OR NATURAL PHENOMENON?
YES. Claim 1 (and similarly Claim 6) recites “identifying…at least one moment from the content stream” and “generating…at least one real-time update for the at least one moment” which amount to steps of observation and evaluation which may be performed in the human mind. For example, these limitations reflect the same steps of a live sports play-by-play commentator viewing a live event, either in person or provided via a video display, and identifying that a player has scored, and as a result announcing the scoring play (i.e., generating a real time update), either verbally or written.
Claims 3 and 8 recites “categorizing…the one or more input data…”, “calculating…an importance score…”, and “identifying…the at least one moment from the at least relevant event based on the importance score” which merely recite general evaluative steps that could easily be performed in the human mind.
Claims 4 and 9 recite “determining…one or more tags…”, “generating a text summary for the at least one moment”, “identifying…an image for the at least one moment…” which recite evaluative, observational, and judgmental steps that could easily be performed in the human mind and “combining…the text summary and the identified image…” which is claimed at such a general level that it amounts to a human activity of creating some message summary and adding a drawing/picture with the message (e.g., a person may formulate a text message with a soccer ball emoji to inform a friend that a soccer player just scored a goal).
Claims 5 and 10 recite “determining…a progress of the content stream…”, “dynamically merging…the at least one real update into a timeline based on the progress” which amount to observational steps of keeping track of the game time of a sporting event (i.e., 10 minutes into a half) and keeping track of when various events occur over the course of the game, either mentally or with the aid of pen & paper.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: DOES THE CLAIM RECITE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS THAT INTEGRATE THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION?
NO. Claim 1 further recites fetching, by a processing unit, a content stream associated with the at least one event” and “displaying, by the processing unit, the at least one real time update on a display unit”. However, these limitations reflect mere extra-solution activities of mere data gathering and data output.
Claims 2 and 7 further recite “the content stream is fetched from one or more external utilities comprising at least one of a live streaming event and a news event”. However, these limitations reflect mere extra-solution activities of mere data gathering, and selection of particular data sources/types.
Claim 5 and 10 recite “display, by the processing unit, the timeline on the display unit” which reflect mere extra-solution activities of data output.
Claims 1-5 additionally recite wherein the various steps are performed ‘by the processing unit’, and Claim 6 recites ‘a processing unit connected to a storage unit’ and a ‘display unit connect to the processing unit’. However, the limitations are written at such a high level of generality that they amount to merely adding the words ‘apply it’ to merely implement the abstract on or with a computer. As such, the limitations cannot be said to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improving the functioning of a computer or technical field, nor of applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine.
STEP 2B: DOES THE CLAIM RECITE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS THAT AMOUNT TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION?
No. The identified additional elements (see above) fail to amount to significantly more as they amount at best to adding the words ‘apply it’ to merely implement the abstract idea on or with a computer. Furthermore, the limitations are recited at a high level of generality that recite well-understood, routine, and conventional utilization of receiving or transmitting data over a network, and output of transmitted data through a display device. As such, Claims 1-10 are directed toward a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malik et al. (US 9,578,377 B1) (hereinafter Malik).
Regarding Claim 1, Malik discloses a method for automatically generating one or more real-time updates for at least one live event, [Figs. 1B-C, 4A-F] the method comprising:
fetching, by a processing unit, [Figs. 1A, 8; col. 27, line 38 – col. 28, line 56: systems may be a computer system comprising memory 806 storing information executed by a processor 804] a content stream associated with the at least one live event; [Figs. 1B-C; col. 5, lines 19-45: game data from sources 12 include live video/audio of live sporting event, as well as feeds of game or play events, transcripts, commentary, etc. (i.e., content stream) which may be transmitted in real-time; col. 11, lines 1-10: system receives game data from sources 50/12]
identifying, by the processing unit, at least one moment from the content stream; [Figs. 1B-C; col. 11, lines 13-56: event processing logic 20 will generate play events based on received data and store an identifier for the play/drive; col. 11, line 58 – col 12, line 3: logic 20 may determine beginning/ending boundaries of play events]
generating, by the processing unit, at least one real-time update for the at least one moment; [Figs. 1B-C, 4A-F; col. 11, lines 13-56: event processing logic 20 will generate play events based on received data and store an identifier for the play/drive and may send updates on play events; col. 16, lines 24-54; col. 17, line 60 – col. 18, line 30: graphical tiles for each play event may be generated and provided for display on an interface of a remote device] and
displaying, by the processing unit, the at least one real time update on a display unit. [Figs. 1B-C, 4A-F; col. 9, lines 5-13: mobile devices receives play events in real time after the description is generated; col. 11, lines 13-56: event processing logic 20 will generate play events based on received data and store an identifier for the play/drive and may send updates on play events; col. 16, lines 24-54; col. 17, line 60 – col. 18, line 30: graphical tiles for each play event may be generated and provided for display on an interface of a remote device (see Figs. 4A-F)]
Regarding Claim 2, Malik discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Malik discloses wherein the content stream is fetched from one or more external utilities comprising at least one of a live streaming event and a news event. [Figs. 1B-C; col. 5, lines 9-62; col. 11, lines 1-10: system receives game data from game sources 12 and/or external game data sources 50]
Regarding Claim 4, Malik discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Malik discloses wherein generating the at least one real time update further comprises: determining, by the processing unit, one or more tags for the at least one moment; [Figs. 1B-C, 4A-F, 6-7; col. 8, line 36 – col. 10, line 32: play event may include identifiers that identify each play, as well as other info including event type, team, players, etc.]
generating, by the processing unit, a text summary for the at least one moment; [Figs. 1B-C, 4A-F, 6-7; col 9, line 51 – col. 10, line 32: event data may have some textual play description; col. 19, line 60 – col. 20, line 7: where graphical tiles associated with plays include a description of the play event; col. 23, lines 34-47: super tiles may summarize one or more portions of the game]
identifying, by the processing unit, an image for the at least one moment based on the text summary and the one or more tags; [Figs. 1B-C, 4A-F; col. 20, line 7 – col. 21, line 18; col. 22, line 60 – col. 23, line 5: graphical tile may have an icon/image corresponding to the play event] and
combining, by the processing unit, the text summary and the identified image to generate the at least one real time update. [Figs. 1B-C, 4A-F; col. 19, line 60 – col. 20, line 7: where graphical tiles associated with plays include a description of the play event; col. 20, line 7 – col. 21, line 18; col. 22, line 60 – col. 23, line 5: graphical tile may have an icon/image corresponding to the play event (see Figs. 4A-F)]
Regarding Claim 5, Malik discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Malik discloses further comprising: determining, by the processing unit, a progress of the content stream for the at least one live event; [Figs. 4A-F; col. 23, line 50 – col. 24, line 49: bar 450 includes play event icons each of which may be associated with a corresponding graphical tile and where the position of each play event icon in the bar may correspond to the time relative to the progression of the game clock; col. 25, lines 5-36: where bar 450 may include markers indicating milestones within a game such as beginning of quarters/periods/overtime/etc. (see Figs. 4A-D)]
dynamically merging, by the processing unit, the at least one real time update into a timeline based on the progress; [Figs. 4A-F; col. 23, line 50 – col. 24, line 49: bar 450 includes play event icons each of which may be associated with a corresponding graphical tile and where the position of each play event icon in the bar may correspond to the time relative to the progression of the game clock; col. 25, lines 5-36: where bar 450 may include markers indicating milestones within a game such as beginning of quarters/periods/overtime/etc. (see Figs. 4A-D)]and
displaying, by the processing unit, the timeline on the display unit. [Figs. 4A-D]
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 recites a system that performs the functions as described in the method of Claim 1. As such, Claim 6 is analyzed and rejected similarly as Claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 7, Malik discloses all of the limitations of Claim 6 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 7 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 2 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 9, Malik discloses all of the limitations of Claim 6 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 9 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 4 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Malik discloses all of the limitations of Claim 6 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 10 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 5 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malik as applied to claims 1 and 6, respectively, above, and further in view of Duan et al. (US 2022/0038790 A1) (hereinafter Duan).
Regarding Claim 3, Malik discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Malik discloses wherein identifying the at least one moment from the content stream further comprises: categorizing, by the processing unit, one or more input data of the content stream into one of at least one relevant event and at least one irrelevant event; [Malik – col. 17 lines 29-42: system may analyze play events and disregard play events that are not important (i.e., relevant or irrelevant)]
Malik fails to explicitly disclose calculating, by the processing unit, an importance score of the at least one relevant event; and identifying, by the processing unit, the at least one moment from the at least relevant event based on the importance score.
Duan, in analogous art, teaches calculating, by the processing unit, an importance score of the at least one relevant event; and identifying, by the processing unit, the at least one moment from the at least relevant event based on the importance score. [Fig. 3; 0064-67, 0078-85: where candidate events (i.e., relevant events) will have respective importance degree parameters determined, and such importance parameters are utilized which candidate events to be commented on]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Malik with the teachings of Duan to calculate an importance score of relevant events and selecting moments based on the importance score so as to first set a candidate events (i.e., relevant events) according to some preset matching (such as the determination of important events of Malik), and thereafter associating importance degrees to the candidate events in order to ensure the contextual relevance and importance of candidates that are ultimately commented on. [Duan – 0078-85]
Regarding Claim 8, Malik discloses all of the limitations of Claim 6 which are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Claim 8 recites nearly identical limitations as Claim 3 and is rejected similarly as that claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/WILLIAM J KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409