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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected in the application.
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 claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-6 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 1 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 1 recites a method of operating a system to construct a customized narrative to be conveyed to a recipient, comprising:
receiving input material from a content creator including content of a narrative to be conveyed to a recipient;
receiving tag input from the content creator identifying at least one location within the text of the material to instruct a device conveying the narrative to the recipient to evaluate whether to introduce supplemental material into the narrative as it is developed;
wherein the tag input includes at least one keyword. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a system” and “a device” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a system” and “a device” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “receiving input material from a content creator including content of a narrative to be conveyed to a recipient;” encompasses mentally a person receiving input material from a content creator including content of a narrative to be conveyed to a recipient.
Next, “receiving tag input from the content creator identifying at least one location within the text of the material to instruct a device conveying the narrative to the recipient to evaluate whether to introduce supplemental material into the narrative as it is developed;” encompasses mentally a person receiving tag input from the content creator identifying at least one location within the text of the material to instruct a device conveying the narrative to the recipient to evaluate whether to introduce supplemental material into the narrative as it is developed.
Next, “wherein the tag input includes at least one keyword.” encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the tag input includes at least one keyword. The mere nominal recitation of a system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites a system and device
Here, “a system and device” amounts to mere generic computer components which does not amount to an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere adding supplemental data to a story cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “The method of Claim 1, wherein the tag input is mapped to an entry in a database, the database containing a plurality of blocks of supplemental material that can be selected by the device conveying the narrative to the recipient.” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 2 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, “The method of Claim 1, wherein the tag input includes reference point input concerning where to insert the supplemental material.” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the tag input includes reference point input concerning where to insert the supplemental material. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The method of Claim 3, wherein the reference point is located at the end of a paragraph of the narrative.” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the reference point is located at the end of a paragraph of the narrative. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The method of Claim 1, wherein the narrative is conveyed in an audiovisual format and wherein the supplemental material includes audio and visual information.” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the narrative is conveyed in an audiovisual format and wherein the supplemental material includes audio and visual information. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The method of Claim 1, wherein the supplemental material includes haptic information.” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the supplemental material includes haptic information. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 7-19 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 7 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 7 recites a method of operating a device including a processor to present a customized narrative, comprising:
receiving input from a recipient for the device to present to the recipient a customized narrative via the processor;
retrieving input material from a database including the narrative via processor, wherein the input material of the narrative includes at least one tag to instruct the processor to evaluate whether to add input material to the narrative at the location of the tag to customize the narrative;
parsing the narrative via the processor to identify the tag via the processor;
determining whether to customize the narrative via the processor; and
conveying the customized narrative to the recipient via the processor. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a device” and “a processor” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a device” and “a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 7 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the processor, “parsing the narrative via the processor to identify the tag via the processor;” encompasses mentally a person parsing the narrative via the processor to identify the tag.
Next, but for the processor, “determining whether to customize the narrative via the processor” encompasses mentally a person determining whether to customize the narrative via the processor.
Next, but for the processor, “conveying the customized narrative to the recipient via the processor.” encompasses mentally a person conveying the customized narrative to the recipient. The mere nominal recitation of a system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 7 recites receiving input from a recipient for the device to present to the recipient a customized narrative via the processor;
retrieving input material from a database including the narrative via processor, wherein the input material of the narrative includes at least one tag to instruct the processor to evaluate whether to add input material to the narrative at the location of the tag to customize the narrative;
Here, “a device and processor” amounts to mere generic computer components which does not amount to an inventive concept.
Next, “receiving input from a recipient for the device to present to the recipient a customized narrative via the processor;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “retrieving input material from a database including the narrative via processor, wherein the input material of the narrative includes at least one tag to instruct the processor to evaluate whether to add input material to the narrative at the location of the tag to customize the narrative;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 7 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere adding supplemental data to a story cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 7 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “receiving input from a recipient for the device to present to the recipient a customized narrative via the processor;” and “retrieving input material from a database including the narrative via processor, wherein the input material of the narrative includes at least one tag to instruct the processor to evaluate whether to add input material to the narrative at the location of the tag to customize the narrative;” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “receiving input from a recipient for the device to present to the recipient a customized narrative via the processor;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Next, “retrieving input material from a database including the narrative via processor, wherein the input material of the narrative includes at least one tag to instruct the processor to evaluate whether to add input material to the narrative at the location of the tag to customize the narrative;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “receiving input from a recipient for the device to present to the recipient a customized narrative via the processor;” and “retrieving input material from a database including the narrative via processor, wherein the input material of the narrative includes at least one tag to instruct the processor to evaluate whether to add input material to the narrative at the location of the tag to customize the narrative;” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, but for a processor, “The method of Claim 7, wherein determining whether to customize the narrative via processor includes selecting a block of supplemental material from the database, and further wherein conveying the customized narrative to the recipient via the processor includes modifying the narrative to incorporate the block of supplemental material.” of dependent claim 8 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining whether to customize the narrative includes selecting a block of supplemental material from the database, and further wherein conveying the customized narrative to the recipient includes modifying the narrative to incorporate the block of supplemental material. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, but for a processor, “The method of Claim 8, wherein the processor selects a particular block of supplemental material to incorporate into the narrative based on information contained within the tag that identifies the particular block of supplemental material.” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person selects a particular block of supplemental material to incorporate into the narrative based on information contained within the tag that identifies the particular block of supplemental material. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, but for a processor, “The method of Claim 8, wherein the tag identifies a plurality of discrete blocks of supplemental material in the database to incorporate into the narrative, and further comprising selecting at least one of the plurality of discrete blocks of supplemental material via the processor to incorporate into the narrative.” of dependent claim 10 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the tag identifies a plurality of discrete blocks of supplemental material in the database to incorporate into the narrative, and further comprising selecting at least one of the plurality of discrete blocks of supplemental material via the processor to incorporate into the narrative. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The method of Claim 7, wherein determining whether to customize the narrative via the processor includes implementing an algorithm to determine whether to select a block of supplemental material from a database depending on at least one factor, wherein the at least one factor includes a number of tags in the narrative, wherein the processor assigns a weighting factor to each tag and utilizes the weighting factor to determine which tags are used to select supplemental content from the database.” of dependent claim 11 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 11 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, but for a processor, “The method of Claim 11, wherein the tag is a keyword, and further wherein determining whether to customize the narrative via the processor includes selecting a block of supplemental material from the database based on the keyword.” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person wherein the tag is a keyword, and further wherein determining whether to customize the narrative via the processor includes selecting a block of supplemental material from the database based on the keyword. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, “The method of Claim 12, wherein the database includes a first field with the keyword, and a second field associated with the first field, wherein the second field includes the supplemental material to be incorporated into the narrative.” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 13 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, but for a processor, “The method of Claim 7, wherein the processor scans the narrative to identify each appearance of a tag, and then assembles a first composite narrative from the narrative and a plurality of blocks of supplemental material, and further wherein the method further comprises reciting the first composite narrative to the recipient.” of dependent claim 14 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person scans the narrative to identify each appearance of a tag, and then assembles a first composite narrative from the narrative and a plurality of blocks of supplemental material, and further wherein the method further comprises reciting the first composite narrative to the recipient. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, but for a processor, “The method of 14, further comprising scanning the narrative a second time to create a second composite narrative different from the first composite narrative by incorporating different blocks for supplemental material than the first composite narrative.” of dependent claim 15 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person scanning the narrative a second time to create a second composite narrative different from the first composite narrative by incorporating different blocks for supplemental material than the first composite narrative. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, but for a processor, “The method of Claim 14, wherein each tag includes a keyword, and further wherein the processor scans the entire narrative to find all of the words that correlate to reference keywords in the database, and wherein the processor records which paragraph each keyword is contained within.” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person wherein each tag includes a keyword, and further wherein the processor scans the entire narrative to find all of the words that correlate to reference keywords in the database, and wherein the processor records which paragraph each keyword is contained within. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, but for a processor, “The method of Claim 16, wherein the processor sorts through multiple instances of each keyword within the narrative and selects a single instance of each keyword to associate with a block of supplemental material from the database.” of dependent claim 17 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person sorting through multiple instances of each keyword within the narrative and selects a single instance of each keyword to associate with a block of supplemental material from the database. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, but for a processor, “The method of Claim 17, wherein the processor randomly selects identified keywords and selects the number of instances that supplemental material is incorporated into the narrative.” of dependent claim 18 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person randomly selects identified keywords and selects the number of instances that supplemental material is incorporated into the narrative. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, but for a processor, “The method of Claim 17, wherein the processor sorts through multipleinstances of each keyword within the narrative and selects a single instance of each keyword to associate with a block of supplemental material from the database (1) using a natural language processing (NLP) methodology or (2) based at least in part on not repeating the placement of supplemental material from an earlier instance in which a narrative was assembled and conveyed to the recipient.” of dependent claim 19 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person sorting through multipleinstances of each keyword within the narrative and selects a single instance of each keyword to associate with a block of supplemental material from the database (1) using a natural language processing (NLP) methodology or (2) based at least in part on not repeating the placement of supplemental material from an earlier instance in which a narrative was assembled and conveyed to the recipient. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 20 is ineligible:
As to step one, claim 20 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 20 recites a method of operating a system to construct a customized narrative to be conveyed to a recipient, comprising:
receiving input material from a content creator, wherein the input material comprises text for the content of a narrative and includes keywords;
receiving tag input from the content creator identifying at least one location within the text of the material to instruct a device conveying the narrative to the recipient to evaluate whether to introduce supplemental material into the narrative as it is being read;
scanning the material to locate the keywords;
selecting keywords for addition of supplemental material;
and
adding the supplemental material at a location proximate the selected keyword;
wherein selecting keywords for addition of supplemental material comprises identifying keywords at tag locations, reducing instances of keywords having multiple occurrences, and randomly selecting from remaining keywords. The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. The “a system” and “a device” amounts to mere generic computer components. That is other than reciting “a system” and “a device” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, claim 20 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “receiving input material from a content creator, wherein the input material comprises text for the content of a narrative and includes keywords;” encompasses mentally a person receiving input material from a content creator, wherein the input material comprises text for the content of a narrative and includes keywords.
Next, “receiving tag input from the content creator identifying at least one location within the text of the material to instruct a device conveying the narrative to the recipient to evaluate whether to introduce supplemental material into the narrative as it is being read;” encompasses mentally a person receiving tag input from the content creator identifying at least one location within the text of the material to instruct a device conveying the narrative to the recipient to evaluate whether to introduce supplemental material into the narrative as it is being read.
Next, “scanning the material to locate the keywords;” encompasses mentally a person scanning the material to locate the keywords.
Next, “selecting keywords for addition of supplemental material;” encompasses mentally a person selecting keywords for addition of supplemental material.
Next, “adding the supplemental material at a location proximate the selected keyword;” encompasses mentally a person adding the supplemental material at a location proximate the selected keyword.
Next, “wherein selecting keywords for addition of supplemental material comprises identifying keywords at tag locations, reducing instances of keywords having multiple occurrences, and randomly selecting from remaining keywords” encompasses mentally a person selecting keywords for addition of supplemental material comprises identifying keywords at tag locations, reducing instances of keywords having multiple occurrences, and randomly selecting from remaining keywords. The mere nominal recitation of a system does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 20 recites requesting supplemental material associated with each selected keyword from a database;
receiving the supplemental material associated with each selected keyword from the database;
Here, “a system and device” amounts to mere generic computer components which does not amount to an inventive concept.
Next, “requesting supplemental material associated with each selected keyword from a database;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “receiving the supplemental material associated with each selected keyword from the database;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 20 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere adding supplemental data to a story cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 20 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “requesting supplemental material associated with each selected keyword from a database;” and “receiving the supplemental material associated with each selected keyword from the database;” steps are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “requesting supplemental material associated with each selected keyword from a database;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Next, “receiving the supplemental material associated with each selected keyword from the database;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “requesting supplemental material associated with each selected keyword from a database;” and “receiving the supplemental material associated with each selected keyword from the database;” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bathiche et al. U.S. Patent (2009/0172022; hereinafter: Bathiche) in view of Horger et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0232543; hereinafter: Horger)
Claim 1
As to claim 1, Bathiche discloses a method of operating a system to construct a customized narrative to be conveyed to a recipient, comprising:
receiving input material from a content creator including content of a narrative to be conveyed to a recipient (paragraph[0054], the reference describes receiving user interaction using an user interface to adapt a story.);
Bathiche does not appear to explicitly disclose receiving tag input from the content creator identifying at least one location within the text of the material to instruct a device conveying the narrative to the recipient to evaluate whether to introduce supplemental material into the narrative as it is developed;
wherein the tag input includes at least one keyword.
However, Horger discloses receiving tag input from the content creator identifying at least one location within the text of the material to instruct a device conveying the narrative to the recipient to evaluate whether to introduce supplemental material into the narrative as it is developed (paragraph[0075], the reference describes a user inputting tags to creating and adding personalization (i.e., supplemental material, as claimed).);
wherein the tag input includes at least one keyword (paragraph[0075], the reference describes the user input is keywords.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Bathiche with the teachings of Horger to change a story using keyword tags which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Bathiche with the teachings of Horger to efficiently for a digital story series to evolve as an interactive collaboration between an author and a reader (Horger: paragraph[0001]).
Claim 2
As to claims 2, the combination of Bathiche and Horger discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Horger further disclose wherein the tag input is mapped to an entry in a database, the database containing a plurality of blocks of supplemental material that can be selected by the device conveying the narrative to the recipient (paragraph[0088], the reference describes storing the data in a database and categorizing the data (i.e., mapped to an entry, as claimed).).
Claim 3
As to claims 3, the combination of Bathiche and Horger discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, and Horger further disclose wherein the tag input includes reference point input concerning where to insert the supplemental material (paragraph[0013], the reference describes visual tags of where the edits of additional personalization of the story is incorporated.).
Claim 4
As to claims 4, the combination of Bathiche and Horger discloses all the elements in claim 3, as noted above, and Horger further disclose wherein the reference point is located at the end of a paragraph of the narrative (paragraph[0012], the reference describes editing an portion of the story and leaving visual tags (i.e., the end of a paragraph of the narrative, as claimed).).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bathiche et al. U.S. Patent (2009/0172022; hereinafter: Bathiche) in view of Horger et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0232543; hereinafter: Horger) and further in view of Dzierzek et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0055024; hereinafter: Dzierzek)
Claim 5
As to claims 5, the combination of Bathiche and Horger discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the narrative is conveyed in an audiovisual format and wherein the supplemental material includes audio and visual information.
However, Dzierzek discloses wherein the narrative is conveyed in an audiovisual format and wherein the supplemental material includes audio and visual information (paragraph[0155], the reference describes using audiovisual data to generate a story and the supplemental information is audiovisual.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Bathiche with the teachings of Horger and Dzierzek to have supplemental data that is audio visual which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Bathiche with the teachings of Horger and Dzierzek to efficiently generate an audio arrangement (Horger: paragraph[0005]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bathiche et al. U.S. Patent (2009/0172022; hereinafter: Bathiche) in view of Horger et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0232543; hereinafter: Horger) and further in view of Rosenberg U.S. Patent Publication (2020/0174630; hereinafter: Rosenberg)
Claim 6
As to claims 6, the combination of Bathiche and Horger discloses all the elements in claim 1, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the supplemental material includes haptic information.
However, Rosenberg discloses wherein the supplemental material includes haptic information (paragraph[0382], the reference describes using haptic data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Bathiche with the teachings of Horger and Rosenberg to include haptic data in the supplemental content which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Bathiche with the teachings of Horger and Rosenberg to efficiently traverse and annotate collections of useful information, and recording the traversals and annotations for the benefit of other interested parties (Rosenberg: paragraph[0001]).
Claims 7-10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knipp et al. U.S. Patent (2016/0225187; hereinafter: Knipp) in view of Parkhurst et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2020/0117706; hereinafter: Parkhurst)
Claim 7
As to claim 7, Knipp discloses a method of operating a device including a processor to present a customized narrative, comprising:
receiving input from a recipient for the device to present to the recipient a customized narrative via the processor (paragraph[0094], the reference describes a user making choices to change a story (i.e., customized narrative, as claimed).);
determining whether to customize the narrative via the processor (paragraph[0109]-paragraph[0110], the reference describes the system looking for placeholders in the story to modify.); and
conveying the customized narrative to the recipient via the processor(paragraph[0109]-paragraph[0110], the reference describes the system customizing the story.).
Knipp does not appear to explicitly disclose retrieving input material from a database including the narrative via processor, wherein the input material of the narrative includes at least one tag to instruct the processor to evaluate whether to add input material to the narrative at the location of the tag to customize the narrative;
parsing the narrative via the processor to identify the tag via the processor;
However, Parkhurst discloses retrieving input material from a database including the narrative via processor, wherein the input material of the narrative includes at least one tag to instruct the processor to evaluate whether to add input material to the narrative at the location of the tag to customize the narrative (paragraph[0047], the reference describes changing a placeholder in the system with a tagging system.);
parsing the narrative via the processor to identify the tag via the processor (paragraph[0043], the reference describes the system finding (i.e., parsing, as claimed) and replacing words in sentence tag placeholders.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Knipp with the teachings of Parkhurst to insert tag data in content which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Knipp with the teachings of Parkhurst to efficiently rewrite gendered words in text to change the text in ways that can challenge unconscious biases about gender (Parkhurst: paragraph[0008]).
Claim 8
As to claim 8, the combination of Knipp and Parkhurst discloses all the elements in claim 7, as noted above, and Knipp further disclose wherein determining whether to customize the narrative via processor includes selecting a block of supplemental material from the database, and further wherein conveying the customized narrative to the recipient via the processor includes modifying the narrative to incorporate the block of supplemental material (paragraph[0110]-paragraph[0111], the reference describes reviewing and modifying story blocks.).
Claim 9
As to claim 9, the combination of Knipp and Parkhurst discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, and Knipp further disclose wherein determining whether to customize the narrative via processor includes selecting a block of supplemental material from the database, and further wherein conveying the customized narrative to the recipient via the processor includes modifying the narrative to incorporate the block of supplemental material (paragraph[0110]-paragraph[0111], the reference describes reviewing and modifying story blocks.).
Claim 10
As to claim 10, the combination of Knipp and Parkhurst discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, and Knipp further disclose wherein the tag identifies a plurality of discrete blocks of supplemental material in the database to incorporate into the narrative, and further comprising selecting at least one of the plurality of discrete blocks of supplemental material via the processor to incorporate into the narrative (paragraph[0109]-paragraph[0110], the reference describes selecting a story block to change with supplemental changes to the story.).
Claim 14
As to claim 14, the combination of Knipp and Parkhurst discloses all the elements in claim 7, as noted above, and Parkhurst further disclose wherein the processor scans the narrative to identify each appearance of a tag, and then assembles a first composite narrative from the narrative and a plurality of blocks of supplemental material, and further wherein the method further comprises reciting the first composite narrative to the recipient (figures 3, paragraph[0053]-paragraph[0054], the reference describes determining the tag and associate the change in the text.).
Claim 15
As to claim 15, the combination of Knipp and Parkhurst discloses all the elements in claim 14, as noted above, and Knipp further disclose further comprising scanning the narrative a second time to create a second composite narrative different from the first composite narrative by incorporating different blocks for supplemental material than the first composite narrative (paragraph[0110], the reference describes using an evaluator to determine which story block needs to be modified.).
Claim 16
As to claim 16, the combination of Knipp and Parkhurst discloses all the elements in claim 14, as noted above, and Knipp further disclose wherein each tag includes a keyword, and further wherein the processor scans the entire narrative to find all of the words that correlate to reference keywords in the database, and wherein the processor records which paragraph each keyword is contained within (paragraph[0110]-paragraph[0111], the reference describes evaluating and modifying the story bay looking at the tags.).
Claim 17
As to claim 17, the combination of Knipp and Parkhurst discloses all the elements in claim 16, as noted above, and Parkhurst further disclose wherein the processor sorts through multiple instances of each keyword within the narrative and selects a single instance of each keyword to associate with a block of supplemental material from the database (paragraph[0054], the reference describes finding each tag that is a keyword.).
Claim 18
As to claim 18, the combination of Knipp and Parkhurst discloses all the elements in claim 17, as noted above, and Parkhurst further disclose wherein the processor randomly selects identified keywords and selects the number of instances that supplemental material is incorporated into the narrative(paragraph[0060], the reference describes randomly selecting gender for a character (i.e., identified keywords, as claimed).).
Claim 19
As to claim 19, the combination of Knipp and Parkhurst discloses all the elements in claim 17, as noted above, and Parkhurst further disclose wherein the processor sorts through multiple instances of each keyword within the narrative and selects a single instance of each keyword to associate with a block of supplemental material from the database (1) using a natural language processing (NLP) methodology or (2) based at least in part on not repeating the placement of supplemental material from an earlier instance in which a narrative was assembled and conveyed to the recipient (paragraph[0025], the reference describes using a natural language processing. The Examiner interprets the limitation as optional because of the term “or” in the claim.).
Claim 20
As to claim 20, Knipp discloses a method of operating a system to construct a customized narrative to be conveyed to a recipient, comprising:
receiving input material from a content creator, wherein the input material comprises text for the content of a narrative and includes keywords(paragraph[0094], the reference describes a user making choices to change a story (i.e., customized narrative, as claimed).);
Knipp does not appear to explicitly disclose receiving tag input from the content creator identifying at least one location within the text of the material to instruct a device conveying the narrative to the recipient to evaluate whether to introduce supplemental material into the narrative as it is being read;
scanning the material to locate the keywords;
selecting keywords for addition of supplemental material;
requesting supplemental material associated with each selected keyword from a database;
receiving the supplemental material associated with each selected keyword from the database; and
adding the supplemental material at a location proximate the selected keyword;
wherein selecting keywords for addition of supplemental material comprises identifying keywords at tag locations, reducing instances of keywords having multiple occurrences,
and randomly selecting from remaining keywords.
However, Parkhurst discloses receiving tag input from the content creator identifying at least one location within the text of the material to instruct a device conveying the narrative to the recipient to evaluate whether to introduce supplemental material into the narrative as it is being read (figures 3, paragraph[0053]-paragraph[0054], the reference describes determining the tag and associate the change in the text.);
scanning the material to locate the keywords(paragraph[0054], the reference describes finding each tag that is a keyword.);
selecting keywords for addition of supplemental material(paragraph[0054], the reference describes finding and selecting words to add additional text to the story.);
requesting supplemental material associated with each selected keyword from a database (paragraph[0040], the reference describes searching the system for the keyword matching the corresponding word placeholder in the sentence.);
receiving the supplemental material associated with each selected keyword from the database (paragraph[0039]-paragraph[0040], the reference describes a user entering in data to replace the keyword in the database story.); and
adding the supplemental material at a location proximate the selected keyword (paragraph[0043], the reference describes adding the adding data to replace the placeholder in the sentence.);
wherein selecting keywords for addition of supplemental material comprises identifying keywords at tag locations, reducing instances of keywords having multiple occurrences (paragraph[0043]-paragraph[0045], the reference describes adding the additional gender to the sentence.),
and randomly selecting from remaining keywords(paragraph[0060], the reference describes randomly selecting gender for a character (i.e., identified keywords, as claimed).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Knipp with the teachings of Parkhurst to insert tag data in content which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Knipp with the teachings of Parkhurst to efficiently rewrite gendered words in text to change the text in ways that can challenge unconscious biases about gender (Parkhurst: paragraph[0008]).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knipp et al. U.S. Patent (2016/0225187; hereinafter: Knipp) in view of Parkhurst et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2020/0117706; hereinafter: Parkhurst) and further in view of Mo et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2014/0181633; hereinafter: Mo)
Claim 11
As to claim 11, the combination of Knipp and Parkhurst discloses all the elements in claim 7, as noted above, but do appear to explicitly disclose further disclose wherein determining whether to customize the narrative via the processor includes implementing an algorithm to determine whether to select a block of supplemental material from a database depending on at least one factor, wherein the at least one factor includes a number of tags in the narrative, wherein the processor assigns a weighting factor to each tag and utilizes the weighting factor to determine which tags are used to select supplemental content from the database.
However, Mo discloses whether to select a block of supplemental material from a database depending on at least one factor, wherein the at least one factor includes a number of tags in the narrative, wherein the processor assigns a weighting factor to each tag and utilizes the weighting factor to determine which tags are used to select supplemental content from the database (paragraph[0051], the reference describes using metadata tags associated with story object blocks (i.e., at least one factor includes a number of tags in the narrative.).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Knipp with the teachings of Parkhurst and Mo to determine the metadata tags that identify the story blocks which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Knipp with the teachings of Parkhurst and Mo to efficiently to dynamically modify and curate web based content using metadata (Mo: paragraph[0001]).
Claim 12
As to claim 12, the combination of Knipp, Parkhurst, and Mo discloses all the elements in claim 11, as noted above, and Parkhurst further disclose wherein the tag is a keyword, and further wherein determining whether to customize the narrative via the processor includes selecting a block of supplemental material from the database based on the keyword (paragraph[0109], the reference describes using tags to determine the story blocks.).
Claim 13
As to claim 13, the combination of Knipp, Parkhurst, and Mo discloses all the elements in claim 12, as noted above, and Parkhurst further disclose wherein the database includes a first field with the keyword, and a second field associated with the first field, wherein the second field includes the supplemental material to be incorporated into the narrative (paragraph[0053]-paragraph[0054], the reference describes the placeholder tags that are incorporated in the content text.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J. Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024
Prosecution Insights