DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 3-5, 14-15 and 19-20 are 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 3 recites “wherein the anomaly engine detects a fluctuation of user engagement with content of the platform that; and obtaining one or more outputs of the anomaly engine, the one or more outputs indicating one or more aggregated engagement metrics each representing a trend of user engagement with respect content having features matching at least one of the features of the media item or the features of the one or more additional media items” at lines 6-11. The limitation appears to be incomplete, making the claim unclear, and prosecution could not be advanced.
Claims 4, 14 and 19 recite “determining that the media item or an additional media item of the one or more additional media items satisfy one or more template criteria; and determining whether an additional degree of similarity between the features of the media item or the additional media item and features of one or more media items identified during a future time window satisfies the one or more similarity criteria; and responsive to determining that the additional degree of similarity satisfies the one or more similarity criteria, determining that the one or more media items identified during the future time window also correspond to the emerging media trend”. It is unclear how the steps are to be performed, however, with reference to occurrences happening in the future. For example, it is unclear as to how, during a current process, how similarities can be “identified during a future time window”. Therefore, the prosecution of claims 4-5, 14-15 and 19-20 could not be advanced, and claims 5, 15 and 20 are rejected as incorporating the deficiencies of the claims upon which they depend.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to Claim 1 is being presented below. However, the Applicants should please note that the analysis for both claims 11 and 16 is similar to that of claim 1, and therefore claims 13 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 1 recites: A method to identify an emerging media trend of a platform, the method comprising:
(a) generating one or more embeddings representing features of a media item of the platform identified during a current time window;
(b) determining, based on the one or more embeddings, whether a degree of similarity between the features of the media item and features of one or more additional media items of the platform identified during the current time window satisfies one or more similarity criteria;
(c) responsive to determining that the degree of similarity satisfies the one or more similarity criteria, determining that the media item and the one or more additional media items correspond to the emerging media trend of the platform; and
(d) providing, during the current time window, an indication of the emerging media trend for presentation to a user of the platform via a client device.
Step 1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. Limitations (a)-(d) are limitations that, as drafted, reasonably constitute processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper (i.e., making mental and/or written notes, calculations and decisions). For example:
(a) generating one or more embeddings could simply be a user writing down on paper with a pen representations of media features;
(b) determining whether a degree of similarity satisfies one or more similarity criteria could simply be a user viewing data and comparing the data to make a mental determination;
(c) determining that the media item and the one or more additional media items correspond to the emerging media trend of the platform could simply be a user making a mental determination based on a comparison of data; and
(d) providing, during the current time window, an indication of the emerging media trend for presentation to a user of the platform could simply be writing information on paper and showing it to a user.
Furthermore, the limitations, as claimed, do not put limits on how the generating or determining, and there is nothing in the claims precluding the steps from being performed mentally by a human.
These limitations, then, are mental processes that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites an additional element of “presentation via a client device” (and the memory and processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium of claims 11 and 16). The client device, as well as the and the memory and processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium of claims 11 and 16 are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic elements performing generic computer functions, and the presentation amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity as there are no limits placed on how the presentation occurs. The limitations merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and the claim is not patent-eligible.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply adding extra-solution activity or generic computer components does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
Additionally, the dependent claims recite additional elements that also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, none of the claims are eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 9-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yong et al. (US20180091468, hereinafter Yong). ** Yong incorporates by reference Stoyanov et al. (US20160232241, hereinafter Stoyanov).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 16, Yong discloses a method to identify an emerging media trend of a platform, the method comprising:
generating one or more embeddings (i.e., parameters of the tagging-algorithm, see Yong, at least at [0053], [0059], and other related text, and see Stoyanov, at least at [0049], and other related text) representing features of a media item of the platform (see Yong, at least at [0053], and other related text) identified during a current time window (i.e., live video, see Yong, at least at [0026], [0028], [0052]-[0053], and other related text, and see Stoyanov, at least at [0026], [0062], and other related text);
determining, based on the one or more embeddings, whether a degree of similarity between the features of the media item and features of one or more additional media items of the platform identified during the current time window satisfies one or more similarity criteria (see Yong, at least at [0026], [0028], [0052]-[0053], and other related text, and see Stoyanov, at least at [0026], [0062], [0069]-[0072], [0076], and other related text);
responsive to determining that the degree of similarity satisfies the one or more similarity criteria (see Yong, at least at [0026], [0028], [0052]-[0053], and other related text, and see Stoyanov, at least at [0026], [0062], [0069]-[0072], [0076], and other related text), determining that the media item and the one or more additional media items correspond to the emerging media trend of the platform (see Yong, at least at [0026], [0028], [0052]-[0053], and other related text, and see Stoyanov, at least at [0026], [0062], [0069]-[0072], [0076], and other related text); and
providing, during the current time window, an indication of the emerging media trend for presentation to a user of the platform via a client device (i.e., trending module, see Yong, at least at Fig. 4, and related text).
Regarding claim 6, Yong discloses wherein the one or more embeddings representing the features of the media item comprise at least one of an audiovisual embedding that represents audiovisual features of the media item or a textual embedding that represents a textual feature of the media item (see Yong, at least at [0052]-[0053], and other related text).
Regarding claim 9, Yong discloses wherein providing the indication of the emerging media trend for presentation to the user comprises:
updating a user interface (UI) of the client device to include one or more UI elements indicating that at least one of the media item or the one or more additional media items are associated with the media trend (see Yong, at least at [0058], Fig. 4, and other related text).
Regarding claim 10, Yong discloses responsive to detecting a user interaction with at least one of the UI elements, providing the user with access to content of one or more of the at least one of the media item or the one or more additional media items, or one or more other media items corresponding to the emerging media trend (see Yong, at least at [0058], [0063], and other related text).
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 2, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong (previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Loheide et al. (US20220312062, hereinafter Loheide).
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 17, Yong discloses determining that the media item and the one or more additional media items correspond to an emerging media trend of the platform comprises obtaining engagement data (see Yong, at least at [0066], and other related text), but does not specifically disclose:
obtaining engagement data associated with the media item and the one or more additional media items, the engagement data representing user engagement with respect to the media item and the one or more additional media items during at least one of the current time window or a prior time window; and
determining that the obtained engagement data satisfies one or more engagement criteria.
In an analogous art relating to a system for analyzing media, Loheide discloses determining that a media item and one or more additional media items correspond to an emerging media trend of a platform,
wherein the determining comprises:
obtaining engagement data associated with the media item and the one or more additional media items (see Loheide, at least at [0033]-[0035], [0059], and other related text), the engagement data representing user engagement with respect to the media item and the one or more additional media items during at least one of a current time window or a prior time window (see Loheide, at least at [0033]-[0035], [0059], and other related text); and
determining that the obtained engagement data satisfies one or more engagement criteria (see Loheide, at least at [0033]-[0035], [0059], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Yong to include the limitations as taught by Loheide for the advantage of more efficiently providing most desired content.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong (previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suryanarayanan et al. (US20140245463, hereinafter Suryanarayanan).
Regarding claim 7, Yong discloses wherein:
the textual features of the media item comprise at least one of: a title associated with the media item, a description associated with the media item, a keyword associated with the media item, or a transcript associated with the media item (see Yong, at least at [0026], [0028], [0052]-[0053], and other related text, and see Stoyanov, at least at [0026], [0062], [0069]-[0072], [0076], and other related text), but does not specifically disclose the audiovisual features of the media item comprise at least one of:
a scene depicted by a sequence of video frames of the media item, an object of the scene depicted by the sequence of video frames, at least one of an action, a motion, or a pose of the object of the scene, one or more colors included in the scene, one or more lighting features associated with the scene, a pitch of an audio signal of the media item, a timbre of the audio signal, a rhythm of the audio signal, speech content of the audio signal, speaker characteristics associated with the audio signal, environmental sounds associated with a scene of the media item, spectral features of the audio signal, or temporal dynamics of the audio signal.
In an analogous art relating to a system for analyzing media, Suryanarayanan discloses audiovisual features of a media item comprise at least one of: a scene depicted by a sequence of video frames of the media item, an object of the scene depicted by the sequence of video frames, at least one of an action, a motion, or a pose of the object of the scene, one or more colors included in the scene, one or more lighting features associated with the scene, a pitch of an audio signal of the media item, a timbre of the audio signal, a rhythm of the audio signal, speech content of the audio signal, speaker characteristics associated with the audio signal, environmental sounds associated with a scene of the media item, spectral features of the audio signal, or temporal dynamics of the audio signal (see Suryanarayanan, at least at [0030], [0034]-[0038], and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the system of the system of Yong to include the limitations as taught by Suryanarayanan for the advantage of more efficiently providing most desired content.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong (previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US20240013558, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 8, Yong does not specifically disclose wherein generating the one or more embeddings comprises:
obtaining a video embedding representing visual features of a sequence of video frames of the media item;
obtaining an audio embedding representing audio features of the sequence of video frames;
obtaining a textual embedding representing textual features associated with content of the sequence of video frames;
performing one or more concatenation operations to concatenate the video embedding and the audio embedding with the textual embedding; and
responsive to obtaining an output of the one or more concatenation operations, performing one or more attention pooling operations to the obtained output, wherein an output of the one or more attention pooling operations comprises the one or more embeddings.
In an analogous art relating to a system for analyzing media, Wang discloses wherein generating the one or more embeddings comprises:
obtaining a video embedding representing visual features of a sequence of video frames of a media item (i.e., video modality, see Wang, at least at [0038], [0044]-[0047], [0052], [0057], [0060]-[0066], [0068]-[0070], [0077], [0108], [0112]-[0113], and other related text);
obtaining an audio embedding representing audio features of the sequence of video frames (i.e., audio/voice modality, see Wang, at least at [0036], [0038], [0044]-[0047], [0052], [0057], [0060]-[0066], [0068]-[0070], [0108], [0112]-[0113], and other related text);
obtaining a textual embedding representing textual features associated with content of the sequence of video frames (i.e., text modality, see Wang, at least at [0036], [0038], [0044]-[0046], [0052], [0057], [0060]-[0066], [0068]-[0070], [0077], [0108], [0112]-[0113], [0137], Fig. 7, and other related text);
performing one or more concatenation operations to concatenate the video embedding and the audio embedding with the textual embedding (see Wang, at least at [0036], [0038], [0044]-[0047],[0050], [0052], [0057], [0060]-[0066], [0068]-[0070], [0077], [0108], [0112]-[0113], [0137], Fig. 7, and other related text); and
responsive to obtaining an output of the one or more concatenation operations, performing one or more attention pooling operations to the obtained output, wherein an output of the one or more attention pooling operations comprises the one or more embeddings (see Wang, at least at [0036], [0038], [0044]-[0046],[0050], [0052], [0057], [0060]-[0066], [0068]-[0070], [0077], [0108], [0112]-[0113], [0137], Fig. 7, and other related text).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Yong to include the limitations as taught by Wang for the advantage of more efficiently and more accurately providing desired content to a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US20240196029 to Arora.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENEA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9524 and whose email address is CHENEA.SMITH@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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.
/CHENEA DAVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights