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 .
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 31-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle et al. (Publication No. 2019/0362441 filed June 11, 2019, hereinafter Doyle); Leon Guerrero et al. (Publication No. 2024/0045571 filed October 17, 2023, priority to continuation application 18/075,881 filed on December 6, 2022, which is a continuation of application No. PCT/US2021/062154 filed on December 7, 2021, hereinafter Guerrero); and Anderson et al. (Publication No. 12,003,622 filed October 11, 2023, priority to continuation-in-part application 18/320197 filed May 18, 2023, and continuation-in-part application 18/319,997 filed May 18, 2023, hereinafter Anderson).
Regarding Claims 31 and 38, Doyle teaches (a) at least one system processing component comprising one or more processors (figure 3, element 396, processor(s)) and non-transitory memory ([0035] machine (e.g., computer) readable storage medium (e.g., read only memory (“ROM)) storing executable instructions:
(b) heterogeneous application programming interface (API) connectors ([0037] figure 1 displays multiple social networks (105A-C) each are communicably interfaced with the pubic Internet (195) via their APIs (110A-C, Application Programming Interfaces) through which data (115A-C) for respective social networks (105A-C)), each connector configured to programmatically retrieve in response to a common query (figure 1, data (115A-C) for the respective social networks (105A-C) enables a common query for data including user activity data pertaining to the users’ activities, comments, connections, likes, tweets, reviews, etc.; [0073 & 0075] matching engine 170 generates test queries and queries the social network for specific targeting keywords), media metadata ([0050] data inputs (111A-C consist of network metadata)) from a different external platform selected from search engines ([0094] e.g., Twitter, Facebook, etc.), social-media platforms (see figure 1, 105A, 105B, and 105C, social networks), and content-utility services without copying underlying media files (Abstract, advertising conditions of the social media campaign are contextually relevant to the one or more targeting parameters matched, the content of the campaign including see [0030] social networks in determining marketing and ad campaigns);
(c) an aggregation controller configured to normalize the retrieved media metadata into a unified data structure comprising platform identifiers, content identifiers, temporal attributes, and engagement metrics ([0029] a social data aggregator is utilized as the source such that aggregated user activity data from multiple social networks or social media interfaces may be retrieved from a single source via the social data aggregator, subsequent to which the data is analyzed for identifying content from which to trigger the aforementioned display/campaign that is contextually relevant to the aggregated user activity data and other information received.);
(d) an interactive user interface (see figure 2C, user interface, element 205) module configured to: (i) render the normalized media metadata as discrete, selectable media tiles (see, figure 2C media tiles consisting of campaign 210A-210E of the user interface of element 205) concurrently representing results from multiple APIs (see figure 1D, APIs including elements 110A-C), and (ii) receive user input (see figure 2C, user interface, element 205) assembling a selected media tiles (see, figure 2C media tiles consisting of campaign 210A-210E of the user interface of element 205) into an ordered broadcast timeline ([0058] a record that contains the content only (e.g., the string) or may be part of a record with other relevant values such as the user's ID, the originating social network, a time stamp; and [0142] specifying a maximum, a minimum, or a range of permissible time to live for the social media campaign); normalizing the retrieved media metadata into a unified data structure executable by a broadcast assembly engine ([0040] analysis engine element 155); media metadata as selectable tiles in an interactive user interface (see, figure 2C media tiles consisting of campaign 210A-210E of the user interface of element 205).
However, Doyle does not expressly teach a selected subset of the media tiles into an ordered broadcast timeline.
Guerrero teaches a selected subset of the media tiles (the initial interface, the first tile, the second tile, and the supplemental information may be provided as part of a singular user interface (user interface of a results page), the initial interface may include general information on a particular topic and content items can be descriptive of different sub-topics of the general topic (the supplemental information having a sub-topics (subset of media tiles) of supplemental information and first and second tiles) into an ordered broadcast timeline ([0096-0097] the multi-state interface includes 3 states, an initial, condensed, and expanded. The states are generated in response to a search query. A first and second tile is descriptive of map data for specific search result including the location and image of a food item for a specific of a Thai restaurant. Also, included in the image is the specific given time (hour) of closure of the Thai restaurant (e.g. 9PM, see figure 3, elements 302, 304, and 306), see also figure 4, element 418, Real-Time Map).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of Doyle’s method of the generation of media content with the method of Guerrero’s generation of media content because Doyle’s generation of media content includes advertising conditions for a social media campaign but does not include a subset of the media tiles. Guerrero teaches a subset of the media tiles for the generation of media content including different sub-topics of the general topic. Incorporating the generation of media content method of Guerrero into the generation of media content method of Doyle would improve Doyle’s generation of media content to enable the advertising conditions for a social media campaign to include descriptive different sub-topics from the various pre-defined parameters associated recommended social-media campaign.
Doyle nor Guerrero teach a blockchain module.
However, Anderson teaches (e) a blockchain module (Abstract, using a blockchain to manage files and ownership for a file sharing and storage service.) configured to, upon publication of the broadcast timeline (column 8, lines 17-33, a time when the image was taken, a date when the image was taken, etc.): (i) generate a cryptographically (column 8, lines 6-7, first cryptography-based storage application) verifiable broadcast record comprising identifiers of the selected media tiles and ordering data (verifiable broadcast record consisting of an NFT which is a record on a blockchain, see column 6, lines 2-4; see the user accessing files within a digital wallet, column 26, lines 18-20), and user-interaction events (column 8, lines 23-27, The system 100 includes a user device 110 in communication with one or more nodes of node 160A, node 160B . . . node 160N contributing to a blockchain system 160, e.g., via network 150.) and (ii) commit the broadcast record to a distributed ledger as an immutable data object (column 13, lines 29-34, a distributed ledger of transactions (e.g., a continuously growing list of records, such as records of transactions for digital assets such as cryptocurrency, bitcoin, or electronic cash) that is maintained by a blockchain system); and (f) a smart-contract execution module configured to automatically enforce, based on the committed broadcast record, executable rules governing content licensing verification, and transaction settlement (column 4, lines 9-20, the blockchain system uses one or more smart contracts to enable more complex transactions. A smart contract includes computer code implementing transactions of a contract; a secure platform (e.g., an Ethereum platform) provides a recording transactions in the blockchain. A smart contract can be a contract with terms of the agreement between buyer and seller being directly written into lines of code), wherein the system improves computer-based media aggregation by replacing platform-specific, algorithm-controlled content presentation with a user-defined, cross-platform aggregation architecture that produces a verifiable, ledger-anchored broadcast record not achievable by conventional search or recommendation systems (column 9, lines column 18, lines 32-36, hashing algorithm, column 9, lines 20-38, recommend titles/names.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of Guerrero’s generation of media content with the method of Anderson’s generation of media content because Guerrero’s generation of media content includes an ordered timeline having a specific given timeline but does not include blockchain information. Anderson teaches the generation of media content including a blockchain to manage files. Incorporating the generation of media method of a blockchain by Anderson into the generation of media method of Guerrero would improve Guerrero’s generation of media to enable generated media data to be managed including the editing features of recording and tracking of information.
Regarding Claim 32, Doyle teaches each API connector retrieves media metadata via authenticated API calls subject to platform-specific permission constraints, and the aggregation controller executes schema translation routines to reconcile heterogeneous metadata formats (115A-C) for respective social networks (105A-C)).
Regarding Claim 33, Guerrero teaches the user interface module concurrently displays media tiles from at least three distinct APIs in a single interactive workspace the supplemental information having a sub-topics (subset of media tiles) of supplemental information and first and second tiles [0096-0097] the multi-state interface includes 3 states, an initial, condensed, and expanded).
Regarding Claim 34, Anderson teaches the broadcast record committed to the distributed ledger comprises a non-fungible token (NFT) uniquely representing the ordered broadcast timeline (verifiable broadcast record consisting of an NFT which is a record on a blockchain, see column 6, lines 2-4; see the user accessing files within a digital wallet, column 26, lines 18-20).
Regarding Claim 35, Anderson teaches the smart-contract execution module verifies content ownership or license permissions associated with each selected media tile prior to enabling broadcast publication (column 4, lines 9-20, the blockchain system uses one or more smart contracts to enable more complex transactions. A smart contract includes computer code implementing transactions of a contract).
Regarding Claim 36, Anderson teaches the smart-contract execution module enforces predefined advertising placement rules including brand-safety constraints, campaign duration parameters, and pricing conditions (column 4, lines 9-20, the blockchain system uses one or more smart contracts to enable more complex transactions. A smart contract includes computer code implementing transactions of a contract).
Regarding Claims 37, Anderson teaches the distributed ledger stores an immutable audit trail of broadcast assembly actions and smart-contract enforcement outcomes (column 4, lines 9-20, the blockchain system uses one or more smart contracts to enable more complex transactions. A smart contract includes computer code implementing transactions of a contract).
Regarding Claim 39, Andersen teaches wherein committing the broadcast record comprises minting a non-fungible token representing the broadcast timeline (verifiable broadcast record consisting of an NFT which is a record on a blockchain, see column 6, lines 2-4; see the user accessing files within a digital wallet, column 26, lines 18-20).
Regarding Claims 40 and 41, Andersen teaches the smart-contract logic prevents publication of the broadcast if licensing verification fails for any selected media tile (column 4, lines 9-20, the blockchain system uses one or more smart contracts to enable more complex transactions. A smart contract includes computer code implementing transactions of a contract).
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 31 and 38 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.
The specification does not clearly define or mention the following claim limitations:
platform identifiers; content identifiers; temporal attributes; engagement metrics; and normalized media metadata as discrete
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERYL R LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at 571-272-4098. 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.
/CHERYL LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166 February 25, 2026