DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving multimodal data, wherein the multimodal data includes visual data and audio data, and wherein the multimodal data is received based on one or more interactions with a portable content-generating device; accessing a content-filter data associated with the portable content-generating device, wherein the content-filter data identifies protocols for excluding content associated with one or more narrative-content categories; applying a machine-learning model to the multimodal data and the content-filter data to generate filtered model-generated narrative content that describes a sequence of events associated with one or more objects depicted in the multimodal data, wherein generating the filtered model-generated narrative content includes using the machine-learning model to remove or modify one or more portions of model-generated narrative content based on the content-filter data; and presenting the filtered model-generated narrative content on the portable content-generating device”.
The limitations of “A precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a computer” and “a portable content-generating device” to perform the claimed steps. The “computer” and “portable content-generating device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a computer” and “a portable content-generating device” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving multimodal data, wherein the multimodal data includes visual data and audio data, and wherein the multimodal data is received based on one or more interactions with idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a computer” and “a portable content-generating device” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving multimodal data, wherein the multimodal data includes visual data and audio data, and wherein the multimodal data is received based on one or more interactions with cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving a request to transmit the filtered model-generated narrative content to
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving a request to transmit the filtered model-generated narrative content to
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “implemented method of claim 1, wherein the filtered model-generated narrative content is generated additionally based on a device configuration associated with
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “data, and wherein the visual features include the one or more portions”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also discloses the additional element of “stored”, and the courts have recognized that storing information is well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A system comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing thereon instructions that, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising: receiving multimodal data, wherein the multimodal data includes visual data and audio data, and wherein the multimodal data is received based on one or more interactions with a portable content-generating device; accessing a content-filter data associated with the portable content-generating device, wherein the content-filter data identifies protocols for excluding content associated with one or more narrative-content categories; applying a machine-learning model to the multimodal data and the content-filter data to generate filtered model-generated narrative content that describes a sequence of events associated with one or more objects depicted in the multimodal data, wherein generating the filtered model-generated narrative content includes using the machine-learning model to remove or modify one or more portions of model-generated narrative content based on the content-filter data; and presenting the filtered model-generated narrative content on the portable content-generating device”.
The limitations of “broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a system comprising: one or more processors; and memory” and “a portable content-generating device”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation 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. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a system comprising: one or more processors; and memory” and “a portable content-generating device” to perform the claimed steps. The “system comprising: one or more processors; and memory” and “portable content-generating device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a system comprising: one or more processors; and memory” and “a portable content-generating device” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving multimodal data, wherein the multimodal data includes visual data and audio data, and wherein the multimodal data is received based on one or more interactions with extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional element of “applying a machine-learning model” and “using the machine-learning model” that are mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a system comprising: one or more processors; and memory” and “a portable content-generating device” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving multimodal data, wherein the multimodal data includes visual data and audio data, and wherein the multimodal data is received based on one or more interactions with product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also recites the additional element of “applying a machine-learning model” and “using the machine-learning model” that are mere instructions to apply an exception. A recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving a request to transmit the filtered model-generated narrative content to
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “receiving a request to transmit the filtered model-generated narrative content to process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing thereon executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by one or more processors of a computer system, cause the computer system to perform operations comprising: receiving multimodal data, wherein the multimodal data includes visual data and audio data, and wherein the multimodal data is received based on one or more interactions with a portable content-generating device; accessing a content-filter data associated with the portable content-generating device, wherein the content-filter data identifies protocols for excluding content associated with one or more narrative-content categories; applying a machine-learning model to the multimodal data and the content-filter data to generate filtered model-generated narrative content that describes a sequence of events associated with one or more objects depicted in the multimodal data, wherein generating the filtered model-generated narrative content includes using the machine-learning model to remove or modify one or more portions of model-generated narrative content based on the content-filter data; and presenting the filtered model-generated narrative content on the portable content-generating device”.
The limitations of “sequence of events associated with one or more objects depicted in the multimodal data, wherein generating the filtered model-generated narrative content includes
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium”, “one or more processors”, “a computing system” and “a portable content-generating device” to perform the claimed steps. The “non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium”, “one or more processors”, “computing system” and “portable content-generating device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium”, “one or more processors”, “a computing system” and “a portable content-generating device” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving multimodal data, wherein the multimodal data includes visual data and audio data, and wherein the multimodal data is received based on one or more interactions with
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium”, “one or more processors”, “a computing system” and “a portable content-generating device” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving multimodal data, wherein the multimodal data includes visual data and audio data, and wherein the multimodal data is received based on one or more interactions with
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “transmission of the filtered model-generated narrative content to elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “receiving a request to transmit the filtered model-generated narrative content to
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the machine-learning model is locally MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also discloses the additional element of “stored”, and the courts have recognized that storing information is well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-10, 12, 14, 17-18, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Afshar (Patent Number 11979365).
As per claim 1, Afshar teaches
A computer-implemented method comprising: (see abstract and background; column 18, lines 42-65; column 19, line 55 through column 20, line 10)
receiving multimodal data, wherein the multimodal data includes visual data and audio data, and wherein the multimodal data is received based on one or more interactions with a portable content-generating device; (content items from data store selected by user for inclusion including images, videos, audio, column 4, line 48 through column 5, line 32)
accessing a content-filter data associated with the portable content-generating device, wherein the content-filter data identifies protocols for excluding content associated with one or more narrative-content categories; (filter content items to remove undesirable content items such as content items include or reference certain individuals, users with low affinity scores, or referencing negative events, column 6, lines 20-65; where undesirable content items reads on narrative content-categories)
applying a machine-learning model to the multimodal data and the content-filter data to generate filtered model-generated narrative content that describes a sequence of events associated with one or more objects depicted in the multimodal data, wherein generating the filtered model-generated narrative content includes using the machine-learning model to remove or modify one or more portions of model-generated narrative content based on the content-filter data; (generate life story by applying a machine learning model that determines whether to include a content item of individuals in a life story based on training data associated with content items, column 7, lines 2-25, where contents items of individuals reads on the one or more objects depicted in the multimodal data; life story includes a chronological order or timeline for content items, column 9, lines 15-40, where chronological order or timeline reads on sequence of events)
and presenting the filtered model-generated narrative content on the portable content-generating device. (generated life-story provided for presentation through display of computing device, column 8, lines 55-65)
As per claim 2, Afshar teaches
receiving a request to transmit the filtered model-generated narrative content to a recipient device; accessing access-permission policy associated with the portable content-generating device; and denying transmission of the filtered model-generated narrative content to the recipient device. (enforcing granular privacy settings for sharing with other users from user device and allowing or blocking access to information that can include life story, column 17, line 20 through column 18, line 20)
As per claim 4, Afshar teaches
the filtered model-generated narrative content is generated additionally based on a device configuration associated with the portable content-generating device. (implemented within or configured to operate in conjunction with or be integrated with a client computing device, such as the user device such as within a dedicated application, program, or an applet running on a user computing device or client computing system, column 4, lines 10-30)
As per claim 6, Afshar teaches
the filtered model-generated narrative content includes a multimedia content that visually describe the sequence of events. (life story includes a chronological order or timeline for content items, column 9, lines 15-40, where chronological order or timeline reads on sequence of events)
As per claims 9-10, 12 and 14,
These claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 1-2, 4 and 6, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
As per claims 17-18, 20 and 22,
These claims are rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claims 1-2, 4 and 6, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
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.
Claims 3, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar (Patent Number 11979365) in view of Boudia et al. (‘Boudia’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20240193559).
As per claim 3,
Afshar does not explicitly indicate “receiving a request to transmit the filtered model-generated narrative content to a recipient device; and establishing a communication session with recipient device before authorizing transmission of the filtered model-generated narrative content”.
However, Boudia discloses “receiving a request to transmit the filtered model-generated narrative content to a recipient device; and establishing a communication session with recipient device before authorizing transmission of the filtered model-generated narrative content” (paragraph [0137], where Afshar teaches model-generated narrative content as shown previously).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Afshar and Boudia because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by more efficiently utilizing computing, processing and communication resources to provide even richer experiences to users (see Boudia, paragraph [0002]). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
As per claim 11,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 19,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 5, 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar (Patent Number 11979365) in view of Klein et al. (‘Klein’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20230237091).
As per claim 5,
Afshar does not explicitly indicate “applying the machine-learning model includes preprocessing the visual data to extract visual features associated with the multimodal data, and wherein the visual features include the one or more portions”.
However, Klein discloses “applying the machine-learning model includes preprocessing the visual data to extract visual features associated with the multimodal data, and wherein the visual features include the one or more portions” (paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Afshar and Klein because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing better product identification (see Klein, paragraph [0003]). This gives the user the advantage more clearly defining what the product is and/or what the product is used for.
As per claim 13,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 21,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 7, 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar (Patent Number 11979365) in view of Stephens et al. (‘Stephens’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20220358450).
As per claim 7,
Afshar does not explicitly indicate “the filtered model-generated narrative content includes a video game associated with the sequence of events”.
However, Stephens discloses “the filtered model-generated narrative content includes a video game associated with the sequence of events” (paragraph [0119]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Afshar and Stephens because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able to differentiate a specific instance of an in-game item from any other instance of the in-game item (see Stephens, paragraph [0004]). This gives the user the advantage of providing for a more authentic feel to a video game experience.
As per claim 15,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 23,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 8, 16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar (Patent Number 11979365) in view of Dave et al. (‘Dave’ hereinafter) (Patent Number 10938979).
As per claim 8,
Afshar does not explicitly indicate “the machine-learning model is locally stored within the portable content-generating device, and wherein the machine-learning model is applied within the portable content-generating device”.
However, Dave discloses “the machine-learning model is locally stored within the portable content-generating device, and wherein the machine-learning model is applied within the portable content-generating device” (column 5, lines 24-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Afshar and Dave because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing complex machine learning models on mobile devices to provide users with personalized and custom content (see Dave, background). This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
As per claim 16,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 8 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 24,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 8 and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAY A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights