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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/10/2025 was filed on or after the effective filing date of the instant application on 04/10/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figures 1-2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
In claim 13, “a narrative generation unit”, “a scene sampling and description unit”, “a storyboarding and continuity book generation unit”, “a Base Scene Snapshot (BSS) generation unit”, “an image-media generation unit”, “a time management information generation unit” and “a synchronization control unit”;
In claim 14, “an audio generation basic information generation unit” and “an audio data generation unit”;
In claim 15, “an input processing unit”;
In claim 17, “a package editing module”; and
In claim 19, “a surrounding environment data processing unit”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 limitations in claims 13-15, 17 and 19, as indicated in the Claim Interpretation section above, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the package editing module" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as analyzing below:
Step 1 (Statutory category)
The claims recite methods (processes). Thus, they fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Judicial exception)
The claims are directed to abstract ideas, including:
Collecting, analyzing, and using information to make a decision (e.g., receiving “broadcast data” including “prompt package” and generating media content based on received data).
Certain methods of organizing human activity, such as receiving data and generating/showing content based on received data).
Mental processes (receiving data and generating/outputting/showing content based on received data could be done as mental judgments absent the claimed generic computer).
Representative mapping:
Claim 1: “receiving broadcast data including a prompt package for generating media content” (gathering/observing information); and “generating media content based on the received prompt package” (using and tailoring information).
These activities fall within abstract idea groupings recognized by the courts and the USPTO: collecting/analyzing/displaying or using information (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); targeted content/advertising and organizing human activity (Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); and rules-based decisions/alerts (FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Integration into a practical application)
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recite generic computing components and conventional data-gathering:
No particular improvement to the functioning of the computer or any network is recited. The claims do not specify any particular signal-processing pipeline, algorithm, synchronization technique, or rendering mechanism that improves technology. Rather, the claims use the computer as tools to perform the abstract decision-making.
The claims do not effect a transformation of an article, are not tied to a particular machine in a meaningful way beyond a generic computing device and unspecified sensors, and do not apply the abstract idea in some other meaningful way that imposes a limit on the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d); see also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Step 2B (Inventive concept)
When viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities:
Receiving data and generating content based on data (claims 1-2, 6-7 and 10). See Electric Power Group (collect/analyze/display); Customedia (reserving memory/displaying targeted advertising not inventive); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (data capture and recognition).
The claimed limitations are claimed at a high level without unconventional hardware or a specific technical arrangement. No specific algorithm, signal-processing technique, or architecture is recited that yields an improvement to computer or sensor performance (cf. BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (inventive ordered combination); DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (solution rooted in computer technology)).
Accordingly, the claims do not include an “inventive concept” that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims
Claims 2, 6-7 and 10 further limit the types of received data and generated content. These are field-of-use or data-source limitations and do not add a specific technological solution or unconventional implementation; they remain additional data inputs for the same abstract receiving/using information, and do not provide an inventive concept.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1–2, 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea (collecting/analyzing information and organizing human activity via targeted content selection/timing) without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception.
Other dependent claims are rejected the same.
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, 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charlesworth et al (US 2026/0024536) in view of Cuomo et al (US 2022/0124385).
Regarding claim 1, Charlesworth discloses a method for receiving broadcast data for media content generation, comprising: receiving broadcast data including a prompt package for generating media content (¶ [0027]-[0028], ¶ [0032]-[0036] and ¶ [0040] for receiving broadcast digital audio signal embedding an encrypted packet configured to generate an inaudible, subaudible or ultrasonic audio signal and to instruct accessing a target URL for displaying the visual and audio content of the URL).
Charlesworth is silent about generating media content based on the received prompt package.
Cuomo discloses generating media content based on the received prompt package (¶ [0006]-[0007] and ¶ [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Charlesworth system with the teaching of Cuomo about generating media content based on received instruction package, so to enhance system with a capability of utilizing a prompt or instruction package to not only access the URL to receive media content for display but also to enable generating media content.
Regarding claim 2, Charlesworth in view of Cuomo discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses wherein the media content includes at least one of image content, audio content, a picture, text content, haptic service content, service content for providing chemicals, or game service content (taught by Charlesworth; ¶ [0040]; and taught by Cuomo; ¶ [0019]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 6, Charlesworth in view of Cuomo discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses processing the received prompt package into a format for generating the media content (taught by Cuomo; ¶ [0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Charlesworth in view of Cuomo discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses wherein the broadcast data further includes additional indication information including at least one of identification information for identifying the prompt package, type information, grade information, or presentation time schedule information of the prompt package, or location information for identifying a packet in which the prompt package is transmitted (taught by Charlesworth; ¶ [0027]-[0032]).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 15-16, all limitations of claims 11-12 and 15-16 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claims 1-2 and 6-7 respectively.
Regarding claim 20, Charlesworth discloses a broadcasting system for receiving broadcast data for media content generation (Figure 3), comprising:
a terminal configured to receive broadcast data including a prompt package for
generating media content (¶ [0027]-[0028], ¶ [0032]-[0036] and ¶ [0040] for receiving broadcast digital audio signal embedding an encrypted packet configured to generate an inaudible, subaudible or ultrasonic audio signal and to instruct accessing a target URL for displaying the visual and audio content of the URL) and transmit a message requesting media content including the received prompt package (¶ [0027], ¶ [0035]-[0036] and ¶ [0041] for transmitting a target URL request including package instruction for displaying the visual and audio content of the URL); and a content generator configured to receive the message and transmit the generated media content to the terminal (¶ [0028], ¶ [0041] and ¶ [0045] for receiving the request and transmitting the generated digital content to the receiving device).
Charlesworth is silent about generating media content based on the received prompt package.
Cuomo discloses generating media content based on the received prompt package (¶ [0006]-[0007] and ¶ [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Charlesworth system with the teaching of Cuomo about generating media content based on received instruction package, so to enhance system with a capability of utilizing a prompt or instruction package to not only access the URL to receive media content for display but also to enable generating media content.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 8-10, 13-14 and 17-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI L DUBASKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/GIGI L DUBASKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights