`
`EXHIBIT J
`(Part 1 of 2)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 2 of 23
`08/16/19 02 : 09PM PDT Envision IP , LLC -) Examiner Rojas
`5712738300 Pg 1/1C
`RECEIVED
`CENTRAL FAX CENTER
`AUG 1 6 2019
`
`Dockct No: E107-003-2016
`
`PATENT
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Applicant:
`Serial No.:
`Filing Date:
`
`David J. Russck
`15/346,780
`November 9,2016
`
`Confirmation No.:
`Group Art Unit:
`Examiner:
`
`2378
`3681
`Marie P. Brady
`
`RESPONSE TO NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
`
`Mail Stop Amendment
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Dear Madam:
`
`In response to the Office Action dated February 8, 2019, please review the
`
`claim amendments which being on page 2 of this paper, and the
`
`remarks/arguments that begin on page 7 of this paper. The statutory three-month
`
`period to respond was May 8, 2019, and Applicant hereby submits a one-month
`
`extension of time with the applicable fcc. This response is being filed on Sunday,
`
`June 9, 2019, prior to the next business day of Monday, June 10, 2019 of the one-
`
`month extension deadline of June 8, 2019, which fell on a Saturday, pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 21.
`
`PAGE 1/10 RCVD AT 811612019 5:09:20 PM [Eastern Daylight Time] 81/R:VU-PTOFAX-003114 3 DNIS:2738300 3 CSID:6462005227 ANI:61933018973 DURATION (rnm•ss):0249
`
`1
`
`TT0006754
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 3 of 23
`08/16/19 02:09PM PDT Envision IP, LLC -> Examiner Rojas
`5712738300 Pg 2/IC
`
`Docket No: E107-003-2016
`
`PATENT
`
`Amendments to the Claims
`
`1.
`
`(Currently Amended) A method of delivering content based on emotional
`
`experiences to a user, comprising:
`
`storing, at a server, a plurality of user interactions performed with a
`
`plurality of digital media assets within a social network;
`
`determining, by the server, using a neural network or fuzzy logic system
`
`
`icial intelligence
`
`method, at least one digital media asset having an
`
`emotional impact on the user;
`
`determining, by the server, an emotional state of the user associated with
`
`the emotional impact, using the neural network or fuzzy logic system artificial
`
`identifying selecting, by the server, a first targeted digital media asset
`
`associated with the emotional state of the user;
`
`executing, by the server, a first operation to display the first targeted digital media
`
`asset to the user within the social network if it is determined that the first targeted digital
`
`media asset has the strongest emotional impact on the user, or execute a second operation
`
`to select a second targeted digital media asset if it is determined that the first targeted
`
`digital media asset does not have the strongest emotional impact on the user and
`
`2,
`
`(Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the
`
`fuzzy logic system is configured to normalize data corresponding to the plurality
`
`of user interactions.
`
`PAGE 2/10 RCVD AT 8116/2019 5:09:20 PM [Eastern Daylight Time] SVR:1N43TOFAX•003114 DNIS:2738300 CSID:6462005227 ANI:6193301897 DURATION (mm-ss):0249
`
`2
`
`TT0006755
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 4 of 23
`08/16/19 02:09PM PDT Envision IP, LLC -> Examiner Rojas
`5712738300 Pg 3/1C
`
`Docket No: E107-003-2016
`
`PATENT
`
`3.
`
`(Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of
`
`digital media assets arc selected from a group consisting of video[[,]] and
`
`animation,:
`
`4.
`
`(Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the first and second
`
`targeted digital media assets asst His]] arc advertising content.
`
`5.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the step of
`
`determining, by the server, an emotional state of the user associated with the
`
`emotional impact, using the artificial intelligence method, further comprises
`
`analyzing, by the server, at least one of a demographic information, psycho-
`
`demographic information, cognitive state, and group interaction of the user.
`
`6.
`
`(Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the first or second
`
`targeted digital media asset is inserted into a video by the server within the social
`
`network.
`
`7.
`
`(Currently Amended) The method of claim 6, wherein the video is a user
`
`generated video, song, slideshow, collage or digital media composition.
`
`8.
`
`A method system for delivering content based on emotional experiences to
`
`a user, comprising:
`
`t .
`
`storing a plurality of user interactions
`
`correlated with a plurality of digital media assets within a social network at a
`
`server;
`
`identify determining, by the server, at least one digital media asset having an
`
`PAGE 3/10 RCVD AT 811612019 5:09:20 PM [Eastern Daylight Time] SVR:1942TOFAX•003114 DNIS:2738300 • CSID:6462005227 'ANI:6193301897 DURATION (mm•ss):0249
`
`3
`
`TT0006756
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 5 of 23
`08/16/19 02:09PM PDT Envision IP, LLC -> Examiner Rojas
`5712738300 Pg 4/1C
`
`Docket No: E107-003-2016
`
`PATENT
`
`emotional impact on a user, wherein the emotional impact is based at least in part
`
`on the extent of user interactions with the at least one digital media asset;
`
`identifying, by the server, other digital media assets associated with the at least
`
`one digital media, the media generated further configured to generate a first
`
`content stream consisting of the at least one digital media asset and the other
`
`digital media assets; and
`
`executing, by the server, a first operation to display the first content stream
`
`to the user within the social network if it is determined that the first content
`
`stream has a strong emotional impact on the user, or execute a second operation to
`
`generate a second content stream if it is determined that that the first content
`
`stream does not have a strong emotional impact on the user
`
`9.
`
`(Currently Amended) The method system of claim 8, wherein the at least
`
`one digital media asset is selected from a group consisting of a video, a
`
`photograph, a song, and an advertisement.
`
`10.
`
`(Currently Amended) The method system of claim 8, wherein the other
`
`digital media assets are selected from a group consisting of a video, a photograph,
`
`a song, and an advertisement.
`
`1 1.
`
`(Currently Amended) The method system of claim 8, wherein the at least
`
`one digital media asset is a video and the other digital media assets include an
`
`advertisement.
`
`PAGE 4110 RCVD AT 811612019 5:09:20 PM [Eastern Daylight Time] SVR:Vd•PTOFAX-003114 DNIS:2738300 CSID:6452005227 'ANI:0193301897 DURATION (mm•ss):0249
`
`4
`
`TT0006757
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 6 of 23
`
`08/16/19 02:09PM PDT Envision IP, LLC -> Examiner Rojas
`
`5712738300 Pg 5/1C
`
`Docket No: E107-003-2016
`
`PATENT
`
`12.
`
`(Currently Amended) The method system of claim 8, wherein the server
`
`uses at least one of a machine Icamina process
`
`neural network or a fuzzy logic system
`
`Z 1'
`
`13.
`
`(Currently Amended) The method system of claim 8, wherein the artificial
`
`intelligence processor server determines the emotional impact by analyzing at
`
`least one of a demographic information, psycho-demographic information,
`
`cognitive state, and social or group interaction of the user.
`
`14.
`
`(Currently Amended) The method of claim 8, wherein the content stream
`
`is associated with a specific date or event related to the user.
`
`15.
`
`(Currently Amended) A system to generate personalized content based on
`
`user emotions, comprising:
`
`a server configured to store a plurality of user likes and user dislikes
`
`correlated with a plurality of digital media assets within a social network; and
`
`a fuzzy logic system
`
`coupled to the
`
`server and configured to identify at least one digital media asset having a positive
`
`emotional impact on the user based on the user likes, the fuzzy logic system
`
`artificial intelligence processor further configured to identify other digital media
`
`assets associated with the at least one digital media;
`
`a media generator coupled to the server further [[and]] configured to
`
`generate a first content stream consisting of the at least one digital media asset
`
`and the other digital media asscts, [[;]] and
`
`the server further configured to execute a first operation to display the first
`
`content stream to the user within the social network if it is determined that the
`
`first content stream has the strongest emotional impact on the user, or execute a
`
`PAGE 5110 2 RCVD AT 811612019 5:09:20 PM (Eastern Daylight TIme1 2 SVR:W•PTOFAX•003114 DNIS:2738300 2 CSID:6462005227 2ANI:61933018972 DURATION (mm4s):0249
`
`5
`
`TT0006758
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 7 of 23
`08/16/19 02:09PM PDT Envision IP, LLC -> Examiner Rojas
`5712738300 Pg 6/1C
`
`Docket No: E107-003-2016
`
`PATENT
`
`second operation to select a second content stream if it is determined that the first
`
`content stream does not have the strongest emotional impact on the user
`
`16.
`
`(Currently Amended) The system of claim 15, wherein the fuzzy logic
`. .
`
`WO=
`
`intelligence
`
`is further configured to identify at least
`
`one digital media asset having a negative emotional impact on the user based on
`
`the user dislikes.
`
`17.
`
`(Currently Amended) The system of claim 15, wherein the fuzzy logic
`• •
`•
`-
`system identifies other digital media assets by
`
`determining if the other digital media assets would have a positive emotional
`
`impact on the user.
`
`18.
`
`(Previously Presented) The system of claim 15, wherein the at least one
`
`digital media asset is a video and the other digital media assets include an
`
`advertisement.
`
`19.
`
`(Currently Amended) The system of claim 15, wherein the fuzzy logic
`
`system artificial intelligence processor uses at least one of a machine learning
`
`process or a fuzzy logic process.
`
`20.
`
`(Currently Amended) The system of claim 15, wherein the fuzzy logic
`
`P/M111 artificial intelligence processor determines the emotional impact by
`
`analyzing at least one of a demographic information, psycho-demographic
`
`information, cognitive state, and group interaction of the user.
`
`PAGE 6110 RCVD AT 811612019 5:09:20 PM [Eastern Daylight Timer SVR:11143TOFAX•003114 DNIS:2738300 MD:6462005227 'ANI:6193301897" DURATION (mm•ss):0249
`
`6
`
`TT0006759
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 8 of 23
`5712738300 Pg 7/1C
`08/16/19 02:09PM PDT Envision IP, LLC -> Examiner Rojas
`
`Docket No: E107-003-2016
`
`PATENT
`
`Remarks/Arguments
`
`Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the present application
`
`in view of the amendments set forth above and the remarks below.
`
`Claims 1-20 arc pending, and have been rejected. Applicant submits that
`
`- the claims, as amended, are in a condition for allowance. No new matter has been
`
`entered.
`
`35 U.S.C. 112
`
`The Office Action rejected Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to
`
`comply with the written description requirement.
`
`Claim 1 has been amended to remove the language "artificial intelligence
`method", and replaced with "a neural network or fuzzy logic system". Support for this
`
`amendment can be found in Paragraph 0101 of the Specification, which states:
`
`"Other techniques for matching the user profile to the digital media asset
`may include neural networks and fuzzy logic, wherein aspects of the user
`profile are used to train the network or as inputs to the fuzzy logic system
`to determine the best digital media asset."
`
`Claims 2-7 have been amended accordingly as well. In addition, claim 2 has been
`
`amended to remove the language "machine learning".
`Claim 3 has been amended to remove the language "tickertape messages".
`Claim 7 has been amended to remove the language "slideshow" and "collage".
`
`Independent claims 8 and 15, as well as their respective dependent claims, have
`
`been similarly amended as well.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`The Office Action rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
`
`directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
`
`Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended to clarify that Applicant's claimed
`
`invention is not directed to an abstract idea, but to a tangible specific
`
`7
`
`PAGE 7/10 RCVD AT 811512019 5:09:20 PM [Eastern Daylight TImel 2 SVR:liV•PTOFAX•003114 DNI6:2738300 CSID:5452005227 ANI:6193301897 • DURATION (mm•ss):0249
`
`TT0006760
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 9 of 23
`08/16/19 02:09PM PDT Envision IP, LLC -> Examiner Rojas
`5712738300 Pg 8/1C
`
`Docket No: E107-003-2016
`
`PATENT
`
`implementation for improving the process of creating a personalized multimedia
`
`stream for a user.
`
`Claims 1, 8 and 15 arc directed to either an express or inherent
`transformation that is particular, a machine implements the steps, the article being
`
`transformed (i.e., the CPU) is particular, the article (i.e., the CPU) undergoes a
`
`change in state (e.g., the CPU changes from using a first operation for inserting a
`
`first targeted digital media asset - such as an advertisement or audio file such as
`
`music — if that particular asset is determined to have "the strongest emotional
`
`impact on the user", to a second operation of selecting a second targeted digital
`media asset if the first targeted digital media asset is determined not to have the
`
`strongest emotional impact on the user.
`
`Thus, amended claims 1, 8 and 15 describe a particular solution to a
`problem to be solved (i.e., providing a much needed determination of whether
`content should be displayed to the user based on a user's known emotional
`affinity towards that particular content) and the performance of the steps is
`
`observable and verifiable (i.e., the playback changes to the second composite
`digital media stream or remains as the first composite digital media stream) (e.g.,
`
`July 2018 § 101 Method Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet).
`
`In addition, the Federal Circuit in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
`
`F.3d 1327 found the disputed claims to be non-abstract upon determining that
`
`they were focused on specific asscrtcd improvements in computer-related
`
`technology, and not merely focused on a pre-existing process for which
`
`computers were invoked merely as a tool. Similar to the claims of Enfish, the
`features of the newly added claims are not merely limited an abstract idea to a
`computer environment by simply performing the idea via a computer, but rather
`
`arc an innovation in the computer technology itself. The claimed system
`
`manipulates operation of the CPU based on a determination that a user would
`
`respond favorably to the insertion of a particular digital media asset, and if not,
`
`then another digital media asset is identified and inserted into the media stream.
`
`PAGE 8/10 RCVD AT 811612019 5:09:20 PM (Eastern Daylight Timer SVRAN-PTOFAX•003114 DR'S:2738)00 C8ID:5402005227' ANI:51933018972 DURATION (mm•ss):0249
`
`8
`
`TT0006761
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 10 of 23
`08/16/19 02:09PM PDT Envision IP, LLC -> Examiner Rojas
`5712738300 Pg 9/1C
`
`Docket No: E107-003-2016
`
`PATENT
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`The Office Action rejected claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`as being unpatcntable by McCarthy (U.S. Patent No. 6,904,408). In addition, the
`
`Office Action rejected claims 6-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatcnable
`
`over McCarthy in view of Rothschild (Pre-grant Pub, No. 20010047294).
`
`McCarthy nor Rothschild discloses "executing, by the server, a first
`
`operation to display the first targeted digital media asset to the user within
`
`the social network if it is determined that the first targeted digital media
`
`asset has the strongest emotional impact on the user, or execute a second
`
`operation to select a second targeted digital media asset if it is determined
`
`that the first targeted digital media asset does not have the strongest
`
`emotional impact on the user".
`
`Specifically, Applicant's claimed invention identifies a digital media asset
`
`that would have the strongest emotional impact or affinity to the user. Paragraph
`
`0101 of the Specification states:
`
`"Regardless of the particular database structure used, some or all
`of the aspects of the user's reality described earlier may be
`captured in a database to permit a user's profile to determine digital
`media assets that have a strong impact on that user. The
`optimization process of finding the strongest or most appropriate
`affinities and best match to the user's internal narrative social
`perception identification framework 804 may be based on a
`number of algorithms."
`
`PAGE 9110 RCVD AT 811512019 5:09:20 PM [Eastern Daylight Time)" SVR:VV-PTOFAX-003114 DN16:2738300 CSID:6402005227 "ANI:5193301897 • DURATION (mm•ss):0249
`
`9
`
`TT0006762
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 11 of 23
`
`08/16/19 02:09PM PDT Envision IP, LLC -> Examiner Rojas
`
`5712738300 Pg10/1C
`
`Docket No: E107-003-2016
`
`PATENT
`
`The instant application is believed to be in a condition for allowance. Such
`
`allowance is respectfully solicited. The Examiner is hereby invited to contact Applicant's
`
`attorney at the telephone number listed below.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Maulin V. Shah/
`
`Maulin V. Shah, Esq.
`Reg. # 56, 587
`350 5th Avenue, 59th Fl.
`New York, NY 10118
`(310) 499-8624 (phone)
`(646) 200-5227 (fax)
`June 9, 2019
`
`PAGE 10110 RCVD AT 811612019 5:09:20 PM [Eastem Daylight Time) 6VRAN.PTOFAX-003114 DNIS:2738300 CSID:6462005227 ANI:6193301897 DURATION (mm-ss):02.49
`
`10
`
`TT0006763
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 12 of 23
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 14.50
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`w ww.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET :NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION :NO.
`
`15/346,780
`
`1 1/09/2016
`
`David J. Russek
`
`E107-003-2016
`
`2378
`
`02/08/2019
`
`7590
`
`75120
`Maulin Shah
`Envision IP
`350 5th Avenue, 59th Floor
`New York, NY 10118
`
`EXAMINER
`
`BRADY, MARIE P.
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3681
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/08/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`maulin.shah@envisionip.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`TT0006781
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 13 of 23
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`15/346,780
`Russek, David J.
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Examiner
`MARIE P BRADY
`
`Art Unit
`3681
`
`AIA Status
`No
`
`-- The MAIL/NG DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`)R Responsive to communication(s) filed on 11/9/16.
`0 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`2b) Ei This action is non-final.
`2a)0 This action is FINAL.
`3)0 An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
` ; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)0 Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex patte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 0.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5) CI Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6) 0 Claim(s) is/are allowed.
`7) [1] Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
`8) 0 Claim(s)
`is/are objected to.
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`9) 0 Claim(s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedbackguspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)0 The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`1 1)0 The drawing(s) filed on 11/9/16 is/are: a)0 accepted or b)0 objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`1 2)0 Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)0 None of the:
`b)0 Some**
`a)0 All
`1.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.0 Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`— See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) El Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`3) 1) Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) 1) Other:
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20190103
`
`TT0006782
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 14 of 23
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/346,780
`Art Unit: 3681
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`Status of the Claims
`
`2.
`
`This is Non-Final Office Action in response to the filing of this application on
`
`1 1/9/16. Clams 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
`
`Priority
`
`3.
`
`The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention
`
`which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original non-provisional
`
`application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent
`
`application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
`
`except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance
`
`Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
`
`4.
`
`The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Provision Application No.
`
`60/460,998, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by
`
`35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of
`
`this application. Claim 3 recites, "wherein the digital media assets are selected from a
`
`group consisting of video, animation, and tickertape messages." The provisional does
`
`not mention that the digital media asset can be tickertape messages.
`
`Claim Rejections -35 USC § 112
`
`5.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
`
`TT0006783
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 15 of 23
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/346,780
`Art Unit: 3681
`
`Page 3
`
`(a) IN GENERAL—The specification shall contain a written description of the
`i nvention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise,
`and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it
`is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode
`contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the
`manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
`enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
`connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the
`i nventor of carrying out his invention.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first
`
`paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s)
`
`contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to
`
`reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor,
`
`or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of
`
`the claimed invention. The requirement for an adequate disclosure ensures that the
`
`public receives something in return for the exclusionary rights that are granted to the
`
`inventor by a patent, and sets forth the minimum requirements for the quality and
`
`quantity of information that must be contained in the patent to justify the grant.
`
`7.
`
`In accordance with section 2161.011. of the MPEP, "original claims may fail to
`
`satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described
`
`in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the
`
`invention achieves the claimed function. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1171
`
`("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic
`
`statement of an invention's boundaries.") (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d
`
`at 1405-06). In Ariad, the court recognized the problem of using functional claim
`
`TT0006784
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 16 of 23
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/346,780
`Art Unit: 3681
`
`Page 4
`
`language without providing in the specification examples of species that achieve the
`
`claimed function. The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use functional
`
`language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional
`
`claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that
`
`achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made
`
`a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the
`
`applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined
`
`genus. Id. "This may include disclosure of the hardware and software required to
`
`perform a claimed function including the "necessary steps for implementing the claimed
`
`function" (e.g. an algorithm, description of steps, flowcharts, etc.-) (MPEP;
`
`2161.011.). "If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and
`
`algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the
`
`inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to
`
`perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made." (MPEP; 2161.011.).
`
`8.
`
`Claim 1 recites computer-implemented functional claim language with the claim
`
`element "determining, by the server, using an artificial intelligence method, at least one
`
`digital media asset having an emotional impact on the user; determining, by the server,
`
`an emotional state of the user associated with the emotional impact, using the artificial
`
`intelligence method." The claim 1 is directed to specialized genus functions. In other
`
`words, the claim scope covers any and all ways of using an artificial intelligence method
`
`to determine at least one digital media asset having an emotional impact on the user
`
`and to determine an emotional state of the user associated with the emotional
`
`TT0006785
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 17 of 23
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/346,780
`Art Unit: 3681
`
`Page 5
`
`i mpact. However, the disclosure only provides adequate algorithm or step-by-step
`
`instructions for one way, using fuzzy logic, of using an artificial intelligence method to at
`
`least one digital media asset having an emotional impact on the user and to determine
`
`an emotional state of the user associated with the emotional impact. In other words, the
`
`disclosure adequately demonstrates possession only for only one actual solution (one
`
`species). The disclosure therefore fails to adequately demonstrate that the Applicant
`
`possessed any and all ways of using an artificial intelligence method to determine at
`
`least one digital media asset having an emotional impact on the user and to determine
`
`an emotional state of the user associated with the emotional impact. The claim(s)
`
`therefore contain/encompass subject matter which was not described in the
`
`specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that
`
`the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application
`
`was filed, had possession of the claimed invention (e.g., other ways of using an artificial
`
`intelligence method to determine at least one digital media asset having an emotional
`
`i mpact on the user and to determine an emotional state of the user associated with the
`
`emotional impact.)
`
`9.
`
`Claims 2-7 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and are also rejected under
`
`35 U.S.C. §112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement based on
`
`such claim dependency.
`
`1 0. Claims 2 and 5 also recite "the artificial intelligence method" and are rejected for
`
`the similar reasons to claim 1.
`
`1 1. As to claims 2, and 7-20, the specification does not describe the invention in
`
`sufficient detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor
`
`TT0006786
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 18 of 23
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/346,780
`Art Unit: 3681
`
`Page 6
`
`invented what is claimed. The test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the
`
`application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor
`
`had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.
`
`1 2. Claim 2 recites, "wherein the artificial intelligence method is selected from a
`
`group consisting of machine learning and fuzzy logic." The specification does not
`
`mention any "machine learning" and does not provide any details of the kind of machine
`
`learning that is used. The specification does not describe in detail how the claimed
`
`elements are inferred or some of the components of the systems. A description that
`
`merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement. See MPEP §
`
`2161.01- § 2163.07(b).
`
`1 3. Claim 7 recites, "wherein the video is a user generated video, song, slideshow,
`
`collage or digital media composition." The specification does not mention a video being
`
`a "slideshow" or a "collage". The specification does not describe in detail how the
`
`claimed elements are inferred or some of the components of the systems. A description
`
`that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement. See MPEP
`
`§ 2161.01- § 2163.07(b).
`
`1 4. Claims 8 and 15 recite "a server", "an artificial intelligence processor coupled to
`
`the server", "a media generator coupled to the server", an "a content server". The
`
`specification mentions only one server and shows only one server in figure 5A. So the
`
`specification only has support for a single server. Furthermore, the specification does
`
`not mention or provide any kind of detail for "an artificial intelligence processor coupled
`
`to the server" or "a media generator coupled to the server". The phrase "artificial
`
`intelligence" is mentioned once, in paragraph [0100] and that paragraph does not
`
`TT0006787
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-22 Filed 04/23/21 Page 19 of 23
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/346,780
`Art Unit: 3681
`
`Page 7
`
`mention "an artificial intelligence processor". Furthermore, the specification does not
`
`mention any kind of "processor" or "a media generator coupled to the server". The
`
`specification does not describe in detail how the claimed elements are infer