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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a process (method as introduced in Claim 5), and/or apparatus (Claim 1), and/or computer program product with executable instructions (Claim 6), thus Claims 1-6 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below.
Claims 1, 5 ,and 6 recite (as represented by the language of Claims 5 and 6):
a step of obtaining rating factor information representing information for calculating the contributions of the creators of the individual pieces of content in the composite content; and
a step of calculating, on the basis of the rating factor information, the contributions of the creators of the individual pieces of content superimposed on the original content.
The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) in the form of determining contributions based on collected rating data. Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of concepts performed in the human mind which represents the abstract idea of mental processes. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for collecting data for determining contributions by individual creators to composite content which could be performed in the human mind or by using pen and paper. For example, a user could obtain (collect, receive, etc.) rating information for content, then use that information to determine contributions by each creator who contributes1.
1 It is noted that, the claims (including the depending claims) do not include any actual calculations, algorithms, formulas, etc. to demonstrate how calculations are performed. The claims merely describe the source data and that calculations are performed on that data, but not how that data is used, what calculations are performed on the data, etc. Therefore, there is no indication that any calculation performed cannot not be performed in the human mind or without a computer.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements such as a computer program product having a computer readable medium including a computer program, for causing a computer to execute the claim steps and/or an apparatus that includes an obtainment unit for obtaining (receiving) data and a calculation unit for making calculations.
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at pages 11-12, describes apparatus, computers, and related components in generic terms). These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, 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 element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2-4 recite further elements related to the data obtaining and calculation steps of the parent claims. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas, as outlined below.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the obtainment unit obtains, as the rating factor information, information related to a tree diagram indicating relations among the individual pieces of content in the composite content, and the calculation unit calculates, on the basis of the information related to the tree diagram, the numbers of pieces of content superimposed further on the individual pieces of content, and calculates, on the basis of the numbers of pieces of content, first contribution ratings that are contributions of the creators of the individual pieces of content”, which further specifies additional types of data to be obtained for calculations, but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional types of data are part of the abstract idea and merely adding that the obtainment unit obtains the data and that the calculation unit performs calculations does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the obtainment unit further obtains, as the rating factor information, user rating information indicating ratings of individual users for the composite content, and the calculating unit calculates, on the basis of the user rating information, second contribution ratings that are contributions of the creators of the individual pieces of content”, which further specifies additional types of data to be obtained for calculations, but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional types of data are part of the abstract idea and merely adding that the obtainment unit obtains the data and that the calculation unit performs calculations does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the obtainment unit further obtains, as the rating factor information, individual play count information indicating individual play counts of the individual pieces of content in the composite content, and the calculation unit calculates, on the basis of the individual play count information, third contribution ratings that are contributions of the creators of the individual pieces of content” which further specifies additional types of data to be obtained for calculations, but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional types of data are part of the abstract idea and merely adding that the obtainment unit obtains the data and that the calculation unit performs calculations does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond abstract idea that are not addressed above in the independent claims therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 2-4 are ineligible.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ロバーツ，デイル，ティー et al. (JP 2010530090 A, Dynamic Mixed Media Package, hereafter referred to as “DMMP”) in view of Sekiguchi (JP 2012118776 A).
In regards to Claims 1, 5, and 6, DMMP Discloses:
A contribution calculation apparatus/method that calculates contributions of creators of individual pieces of content in composite content that is content having original content and one or more pieces of content different from the original content and superimposed on the original content, the contribution calculation apparatus comprising: (page 3, line 34-page4, line 8; page 22, lines 17-30; etc., describes systems, machines (apparatus), and/or executable instructions for use in performing the functions of the described method/system2)
an obtainment unit that obtains rating factor information; (page 5, line 31-page 6, line 6, ratings factor information for contributors is obtained/collected, ratings can be entered manually or automatically derived (consumers who also provide content represent additional individual contributors, see also page 5, lines 10-22, “overlay”, etc. represent superimposed content), and rating factor information (any factors that can be used for rating) can be in many forms, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the types of feedback (rating factor information) would be related to popularity of content; page 4, line 41-page 5, line 9, user submissions, such as ratings, are submitted to the media packager to be included in the media package with the content, the media packager represents an obtaining unit for receiving (obtaining) the rating factor information2); and
a calculation unit that calculates the contributions of the creators of the individual pieces of content superimposed on the original content (page 8, lines 16-22, determines contribution percentages; page 6, line 37-page 7, line 3, consumers/creators’ contributions can be calculated related to revenues (used for royalties); Page 8, line 34-page 9, line 12, consumers/creators are provided royalties for their percentage of contribution; for additional discussion of popularity and contribution see Page 6, line 30- page 7, line 3, consumers (creators of consumer generated content superimposed on the original content) can be identified based on popularity of content (ratings), consumers/creators’ contributions based on popularity are be related to revenues (used for royalties); page 8, lines 16-22; etc., content identifier system acts as a calculator unit for calculating the contribution percentages of the users/creators2)
2 See also page 23, lines 3-20, the exemplary configurations are not limiting and other configurations may be used, including “…the structure and functionality presented as separate components in an exemplary configuration may be implemented as a combined structure or component.” Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the content identifier system/calculator unit and media packager/obtaining unit can be combined in the same system or apparatus, as disclosed in the reference.
DMMP discloses the above system/method for overlaying/superimposing content to previous content to composite content by multiple users, obtaining rating factor information, and calculating user contribution based on populate. Although Examiner believes that DMMP strongly implies that contribution percentages could be based on popularity (as represented by the rating factor information), DMMP does not explicitly disclose that such rating factor information is directly used in the contribution calculations. However, Sekiguchi teaches:
[obtained rating factor information representing information being used] for calculating the contributions of the creators of the individual pieces in the composite content; and [calculating,] on the basis of the rating factor information, the contributions of the creators of the individual pieces of content (page 5, line 14-page 6, line 10, describes the collection of rating factor information (evaluations, comments/reviews) that is used for calculating contributions of creators for individual pieces provided by creators of a collaborative content, the contribution calculation is based at least in part on the rating factor information (evaluation/comments), calculates creators’ degrees of contribution to sales of content (rating); page 3, line 22, the factor information includes comments/reviews of the content (contributions are related to sales/revenue of content as comparable to DMMP))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the system of DMMP so as to have included [obtained rating factor information representing information being used] for calculating the contributions of the creators of the individual pieces in the composite content; and [calculating,] on the basis of the rating factor information, the contributions of the creators of the individual pieces of content, as taught by Sekiguchi.
DMMP discloses a “base” method/system in which rating factor information is collected and in which user contributions are calculated, as shown above. Sekiguchi teaches a comparable method/system in which rating factor information is collected and in which user contributions are calculated, as shown above. Sekiguchi also teaches an embodiment in which in which rating factor information is directly used in calculating user contributions, as shown above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the adaptation of [obtained rating factor information representing information being used] for calculating the contributions of the creators of the individual pieces in the composite content; and [calculating,] on the basis of the rating factor information, the contributions of the creators of the individual pieces of content to DMMP could be performed with the technical expertise demonstrated in the applied references. (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.")
Claims 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DMMP in view of Sekiguchi in further view of Al Majid et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0164986 A1).
In regards to Claim 2, DMMP discloses:
wherein the obtainment unit obtains, as the rating factor information, information related to a tree diagram indicating relations among the individual pieces of content in the composite content, (page 20, lines 23-24, “…presents the accessible contents of the package to the user (in a tree-like hierarchical format)…”, media package indicating the package of original and additional content, presenting a tree-like hierarchical format indicates that the content within the package, including obtained rating factor information is arranged in a structure related to a “tree diagram indicating relations among the individual pieces of content” (hierarchical)) and
the calculation unit calculates, on the basis of rating factor information, first contribution ratings that are contributions of the creators of the individual pieces of content (page 8, lines 16-22, determines contribution percentages; page 6, line 37-page 7, line 3, consumers/creators’ contributions can be calculated related to revenues (used for royalties); Page 8, line 34-page 9, line 12, consumers/creators are provided royalties for their percentage of contribution; for additional discussion of popularity and contribution see Page 6, line 30- page 7, line 3, consumers (creators of consumer generated content superimposed on the original content) can be identified based on popularity of content (ratings), consumers/creators’ contributions based on popularity are be related to revenues (used for royalties); page 8, lines 16-22; etc., content identifier system acts as a calculator unit for calculating the contribution percentages of the users/creators)
DMMP/Sekiguchi does not explicitly disclose, but Al Majid Discloses:
[obtaining rating factor information], on the basis of the information related to a tree [structure], the numbers of pieces of content superimposed further on the individual pieces of content ([0063]; [0064]; [0068]; Claim 4; Claim 15, can track derivative overlays (further overlays created using existing overlays that were created for original content), provides usage information regarding the use of overlay and information can include tracking derivative overlays created from the user’s overlay (this would include numbers of derivative overlays), usage data also provides information regarding popularity of the users overlays/content (as comparable to DMMP/Sekiguchi); [0068], the ability to automatically delete or modify all/any derivative overlays when a first overlay is deleted/modified demonstrates a hierarchical/tree relationship between the content)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of DMMP/Sekiguchi so as to have included [obtaining rating factor information], on the basis of the information related to a tree [structure], the numbers of pieces of content superimposed further on the individual pieces of content, as taught by Al Majid in order to provide additional factors related to rating user contributions (such as popularity or user content] (Al Majid, [0063]; Sekiguchi, page 3, lines 25-28; page 5, lines 10-4; DMMP, page 6, lines 30-31; page 15, lines 24-25; etc.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize how to use the number of further derived pieces of content and related popularity of Al Majid as rating factor information for calculating the contributions of individual contributors. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to perform the calculations on a number of further derived pieces of content information or reviews/comments/evaluations, since they are merely different forms of feedback and performance data that represent factors that can be used in determining ratings (rating factor information). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to apply the calculating steps of DMMP/Sekiguchi to the number of further derived pieces of content information of Al Majid to determine contribution ratings, since both types of data represent rating factor information (feedback and performance data related to popularity and/or sales contributions).
In regards to Claim 3, DMMP/Sekiguchi discloses the above method/system for using rating factor information to determine user contributions to composite content. Additionally, DMMP discloses:
wherein the obtainment unit further obtains, as the rating factor information, user rating information indicating ratings of individual users for the composite content, (page 5, lines 32-34, evaluations/reviews/comments are applied to specific content by specific individual users (secondary creation content, see also page 5, lines 14-31; etc.); page 6, lines 6-10, the process can be performed for a number of users (secondary, tertiary, fourth), the evaluations/reviews/comments used for ratings are applied to specific content by individual users, therefore the calculations are performed for individual pieces of content and individual users) and
the calculating unit calculates, on the basis of the user rating information, contribution ratings that are contributions of the creators of the individual pieces of content (page 5, lines 32-34, evaluations/reviews/comments are applied to specific content by specific individual users (secondary creation content, see also page 5, lines 14-31; etc.); page 6, lines 6-10, the process can be performed for a number of users (secondary, tertiary, fourth), the evaluations/reviews/comments used for ratings are applied to specific content by individual users, therefore the calculations are performed for individual pieces of content and individual users).
DMMP does not explicitly disclose that the contribution ratings are “second contribution ratings”, however, Sekiguchi does teach the collection of multiple types of information that can be used as rating factors (page 5, lines 31-page6, lines 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the calculations of DMMP/Sekiguchi could simply be applied to multiple types of rating factor information to determine rating factors, such as those described in DMMP, Sekiguchi, and Al Majid. The calculations would be performed in the same manner regardless of the source information (since there no detail regarding how the calculations are made).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the system of DMMP/Sekiguchi/Al Majid could be used to produce a second or additional rating based on the different rating factor information that can be used to determine contributions (including based on popularity and/or sales contributions), since it would merely be a matter of using different input data and the processing of the calculations would not be significantly affected. The prior art references include all of the necessary components and skills required to produce multiple ratings based on multiple rating factor information.
In regards to Claim 4, DMMP/Sekiguchi discloses the above system/method for adding superimposed content to previous content for composite content by multiple users, and the use of rating factor information (such as user feedback and/or performance information that can be used as factors for determining ratings) to calculate contributions of individual users related to their contributions to sales (degrees, ratings, as presented in the parent claims).
DMMP/Sekiguchi does not explicitly disclose but Al Majid teaches:
[obtaining as rating factor information], individual play count information indicating individual play counts of the individual pieces of content in the composite content ([0012]; [0059], overlays (superimposed individual content pieces) can be applied to existing media (original content) by multiple users to create composite content; [0029], content (to which overlays, editing, effects, etc. are applied) include image and video (playable content); [0064], usage information regarding each user’s contribution (overlay) can be collected including play counts (“… number of views a media overlay has had by other users, the number of times the user's media overlay has been applied to media content items…”), users can select different set of overlays for a media item (see [0059]; etc.) indicating that the set of overlays for the same media item may include different overlays, additionally, the popularity of an overlay can be determined, (see [0063]), further indicating that some overlays could be applied to a media item more than others (selected by more users for use with the media item) indicating that the play count information includes factors that can be used for rating (i.e. rating factor information))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of DMMP/Sekiguchi so as to have included [obtaining as rating factor information], individual play count information indicating individual play counts of the individual pieces of content in the composite content, as taught by Al Majid in order to provide additional factors related to rating user contributions (such as popularity or user content) (Al Majid, [0063]; Sekiguchi, page 3, lines 25-28; page 5, lines 10-4; DMMP, page 6, lines 30-31; page 15, lines 24-25; etc.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize how to use the play count and related popularity of Al Majid as rating factor information for calculating the contributions of individual contributors. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to perform the calculations on a play count or reviews/comments/evaluations, since they are merely different forms of feedback and performance data that represent factors that can be used in determining ratings (rating factor information). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to apply the calculating steps of DMMP/Sekiguchi to the play count of Al Majid to determine contribution ratings, since both types of data represent rating factor information (feedback and performance data related to popularity and/or sales contributions).
DMMP does not explicitly disclose that the contribution ratings are “third contribution ratings”2, however, Sekiguchi does teach the collection of multiple types of information that can be used as rating factors (page 5, lines 31-page6, lines 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the calculations of DMMP/Sekiguchi could simply be applied to multiple types of rating factor information to determine rating factors, such as those described in DMMP, Sekiguchi, and Al Majid. The calculations would be performed in the same manner regardless of the source information (since there no detail regarding how the calculations are made).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the system of DMMP/Sekiguchi/Al Majid could be used to produce a second2 or additional rating based on the different rating factor information that can be used to determine contributions (including based on popularity and/or sales contributions), since it would merely be a matter of using different input data and the processing of the calculations would not be significantly affected. The prior art references include all of the necessary components and skills required to produce multiple ratings based on multiple rating factor information.
2 It is noted that, the term “third” is merely a label for the rating. Since Claim 4 depends from Claim 2, there is no “second rating”, therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the “third rating”, regardless of the label provided, merely represents a second (or additional) rating.
Additional Identified Relevant Prior Art
Takeda et al. (Patent No. US 10,621,656 B2). There is provided an information processing apparatus to divide an amount of contribution to a plurality of creators in association with content into a first part and a second part on the basis of a certain division ratio, the first part being distributed on the basis of a first distribution ratio, the second part being distributed on the basis of a second distribution ratio, and to calculate distribution amounts of the contribution to the respective creators on the basis of an amount corresponding to the first part, an amount corresponding to the second part, the first distribution ratio, and the second distribution ratio (Abstract).
Sood et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0302938 A1). Discloses use of view counts for determining popularity and trending of user overlays (see at least [0048]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.D.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights