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 .
Miscellaneous
Claims pending: 1-20
Claims amended: 1, 5, 9-11, 15, 19-20,
Claims cancelled: n/a
New claims: n/a
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s citation and explanation regarding claims 8, 18, 9-10, 19 overcomes the objection raised, therefore the objections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 11, 20, have been fully considered.
Regarding applicants’ remarks dated 07/16/2026, regarding how currently cited art references fail to teach currently amended claims 1, 11, 20.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in further view of Ramos, see detailed action below for explanation.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2, 5-8, 12, 15-18, have been fully considered and are rejected based on the same reason as claims 1, 11, 20 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, amendment states “…the multimedia article being played at a user device separate from the computer system. . .” However, none of the cited paragraphs P. 31-34, 37-38, 41-42, nor the rest of the figures or specification appear to support this limitation, there is mention of “mobile device” and “local device” within the specification, but not in a context that support the limitation in any way. Please indicate the exact written support within the specification for this limitation, (figures, paragraph, etc.).
Further action required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 3-4, 11, 13-14, 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US 20230326358) to (Ramos).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 11, 20, Ramos teach receiving, at a computer system, data
associated with a currently playing multimedia article; the multimedia article being played at a user device separate from the computer system; analyzing using a processor associated with the computer system the data to identify an audience sentiment toward the currently playing multimedia article; adjusting, using the processor, at least one aspect of the currently playing multimedia article based on the identified audience sentiment; wherein adjusting the at least one aspect comprises modifying dialogue associated with the currently playing multimedia article and transmitting updated data associated with the modified dialogue to the user device for presenting the currently playing multimedia article with the adjusted at least one aspect. (Fig 2-3, P. 3, 13-15, 36-40, 42-43, 64-67, determining a listener’s level of comprehension of the one or more topics; based on the level of complexity, the level of interest, and level of comprehension corresponding to the one or more topics, assigning a playback speed to the one or more content blocks associated with the one or more topics; and modifying the one or more content blocks to play at the assigned playback speed, and the system may assign a comprehension score to a given topic/content based on the level of comprehension associated with the listener given past behavior on the topic/content, collect real-time biometric data to determine a listener’s level of comprehension based on a detected sentiment of the listener in real time as the listener is listening to the stream...if it is determined based on the biometric sensor that the listener is expressing distraction or boredom, the playback pacing program may increase playback speed of the current content block to increase the listener’s stimulation and increase interest or may skip the current content block and/or move to a content block associated with a topic that has a higher interest score, (modifying dialogue associated with the currently playing multimedia article) and adjusting the complexity scores, interest scores, and/or the comprehension score of the user with respect to the topic of current content block based on the real-time biometric feedback. The system may, using sensors such as cameras or EEG machines, and subject to listener’s approval, collect real-time biometric data to determine a listener’s level of comprehension based on a detected sentiment of the listener in real time as the listener is listening to the audio stream, based on the sensor data, that the listener is expressing confusion or frustration (analyzing using a processor …the data to identify an audience sentiment toward the currently playing multimedia article), the system may decrease the playback speed of the current content block or repeat all or part of the current content block to allow the listener more time to process the content block, improving comprehension and reducing frustration, which reads on (wherein adjusting the at least one aspect comprises modifying dialogue associated with the currently playing multimedia article and transmitting updated data associated with the modified dialogue to the user device for presenting the currently playing multimedia article with the adjusted at least one aspect). The system may adjust the complexity scores, comprehension scores of a listener with respect to the topic/content of the currently consumed content block. Ramos Fig 1, P. 53-54, further teach client computing device 102 and a server 112 interconnected via a communication network 114, the networked computer environment 100 may include a plurality of client computing devices 102, sensors 108, and servers 112, which reads on (the multimedia article being played at a user device separate from the computer system)).
Ramos further teach computer-implemented method, the computer-implemented method, a computer system, a processor, a memory including instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory to perform operations, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a server in network communication with at least one database, cause the server to perform operations. (P. 44-56, 71-75)
Regarding claim(s) 3, 13, Ramos teach the method, the system, the currently playing multimedia article, the data.
Ramos further teach at least one of: audience reaction data to the currently playing multimedia article and/or environmental data of a location in which the currently playing multimedia article is being presented. (Fig 2-3, P. 3, 13-15, 36-40, 42-43, 64-67, determining a listener’s level of comprehension of the one or more topics; based on the level of complexity, the level of interest, and level of comprehension corresponding to the one or more topics, collect real-time biometric data to determine a listener’s level of comprehension based on a detected sentiment of the listener in real time as the listener is listening to the stream...if it is determined based on the biometric sensor that the listener is expressing distraction or boredom, the playback pacing program may increase playback speed of the current content block to increase the listener’s stimulation and increase interest or may skip the current content block and/or move to a content block associated with a topic that has a higher interest score, and adjusting the complexity scores, interest scores, and/or the comprehension score of the user with respect to the topic of current content block based on the real-time biometric feedback).
Regarding claim(s) 4, 14, Ramos teach the method, the system, the currently playing multimedia article, the data, the receiving the data the computer system.
Ramos further teach receiving the data from one or more sensors associated with the computer system. (Fig 2-3, P. 3, 13-15, 36-40, 42-43, 64-67, the system may, using sensors such as cameras or EEG machines, and subject to listener’s approval, collect real-time biometric data to determine a listener’s level of comprehension based on a detected sentiment of the listener in real time as the listener is listening to the audio stream, based on the sensor data, that the listener is expressing confusion or frustration, the system may decrease the playback speed of the current content block or repeat all or part of the current content block to allow the listener more time to process the content block, improving comprehension and reducing frustration).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-8, 12, 15-18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20230326358) to (Ramos) in view of (US 20220167052) to (Patel).
Regarding claim(s) 2, 12, Ramos teach the method, the system, the multimedia article.
Patel further teach one of: a movie, a television show, or a song. (P. 11-15, viewer can be watching movie, TV show, or listening to song, and analyzing their reactions while doing so).
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 Ramos by one of: a movie, a television show, or a song as taught by Patel in order to looking for ways to increase the engagement of their customers with their content.
Regarding claim(s) 5, 15, Ramos teach the method, the system, the currently playing multimedia article, the adjusting the least one aspect.
Patel further teach adjusting at least one of: a story of the currently playing multimedia article, a script of the currently playing multimedia article, and character characteristics in the currently playing multimedia article. (P. 55-57, making adjustments such as blurring, obscuring, or lower volume of certain character dialogue based various on viewer reactions).
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 Ramos by adjusting at least one of: a story of the currently playing multimedia article, a script of the currently playing multimedia article, and character characteristics in the currently playing multimedia article as taught by Patel in order to looking for ways to increase the engagement of their customers with their content.
Regarding claim(s) 6, 16, Ramos teach the method, the system, the currently playing multimedia article, the adjusting the least one aspect.
Patel further teach adjusting without stopping currently playing multimedia article. (P. 55-57, making adjustments such as blurring, obscuring, or lower volume of certain character dialogue based various on viewer reactions).
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 Ramos by adjusting without stopping the currently playing multimedia article as taught by Patel in order to looking for ways to increase the engagement of their customers with their content.
Regarding claim(s) 7, 17, Ramos teach the method, the system, the currently playing multimedia article, the identifying the audience sentiment.
Patel further teach identifying a majority sentiment of an audience viewing currently playing multimedia article. (P. 55-57, making adjustments such as blurring, obscuring, based on viewer reactions such as fright, discomfort, or disgust).
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 Ramos by identifying a majority sentiment of an audience viewing currently playing multimedia article as taught by Patel in order to looking for ways to increase the engagement of their customers with their content.
Regarding claim(s) 8, 18, Ramos teach the method, the system, the currently playing multimedia article, the identifying the audience sentiment.
Patel further teach identifying a target sentiment of a subset of an audience viewing content. (P. 11, interests or preferences of a demographic group including the user).
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 Ramos by identifying a target sentiment of a subset of an audience viewing content as taught by Patel in order to looking for ways to increase the engagement of their customers with their content.
Claim(s) 9-10, 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20230326358) to (Ramos) in view of (US 20250068888) to (Theodoropoulos).
Regarding claim(s) 9, 19, Ramos teach the method, the system, the currently playing multimedia article, the adjusted at least one aspect, the currently playing multimedia article.
Theodoropoulos further teach generating a record including data indicative of adjustments made to the at least one aspect of playing multimedia article. (P. 41, relation generalization module 206 may save the results in a database such as persistent storage 113 or remote database 130 and utilize the results for future reinforcement learning associated with the cognitive models of multi-relational graph relation generation engine 200).
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 Ramos by generating a record including data indicative of adjustments made to the at least one aspect of playing multimedia article as taught by Theodoropoulos in order to learning the relationships between entities within graph neural networks.
Regarding claim(s) 10, Ramos in view of Theodoropoulos teach the method, the system, the currently playing multimedia article, the listing of each of the adjusted at least one aspect, the record.
Theodoropoulos further teach transmitting record to at least one recipient. (P. 41, relation generalization module 206 may save the results in a database such as persistent storage 113 or remote database 130 and utilize the results for future reinforcement learning associated with the cognitive models of multi-relational graph relation generation engine 200, the transmitting of results to remote storage, and the future retrieving of it for other purpose reads on (transmitting record to at least one recipient)).
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 Ramos by transmitting record to at least one recipient as taught by Theodoropoulos in order to learn the relationships between entities within graph neural networks.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONG LE whose telephone number is (571)270-7637. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9 am - 6pm).
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 5712721915. 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.
/RONG LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
