Patent Drafting Analysis of Apple’s Video and Media Messaging Content Analysis | US 2024/0404280 A1
Patent Drafting Analysis of Apple's Video and Media Messaging Content Analysis | US 2024/0404280 A1
A structural and strategic analysis of Apple's media mail sensitive content detection patent, examining claim architecture, drafting quality signals, §101 eligibility exposure, and prosecution positioning across 20 claims.
Spec Words
9,200
Across 7 sections
Draft now ↗
Total Claims
20
3 independent · 17 dependent
Draft now ↗
Figure Sheets
10
System, flow diagrams, UI screens, hardware
Draft now ↗
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · · 12 min read Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Overview
Structural Overview
The detailed description dominates at approximately 52% of total words (~5,800 words across paragraphs [0016]–[0175]), providing rich embodiment support for the claim set. The patent deploys 20 claims — 3 independent claims covering a CRM (Claim 1), a method (Claim 15), and a system apparatus (Claim 20) — with 17 dependent claims yielding a 5.67:1 ratio. Ten figure sheets spanning network architecture, flow diagrams, UI mockups, and device hardware provide broad visual coverage of the disclosed system.
Section Word Distribution
↗ Click bars to exploreFigure Inventory — 10 Sheets
| Figure | Description | Role |
|---|---|---|
| FIG. 1A | Block diagram of example system 100 showing sending device 104, network 102 with server devices 108, and multiple recipient devices 106a–106n.Search in Eureka ↗ | System architecture |
| FIG. 1B | Block diagram of recipient device 106 showing media analysis module 110, sensitivity determination engine 112, filter and alert engine 118, ML model engine 120, and data repository 122 with sensitivity criteria 126, ML models 130, and user relationships 138.Search in Eureka ↗ | Key embodiment |
| FIG. 2 | Flow diagram of process 200 showing recipient device receiving media mail after unanswered call, analyzing for sensitivity criteria, displaying alert, and receiving user approval or disapproval for playback.Search in Eureka ↗ | Flow diagram |
| FIG. 3 | Flow diagram of process 300 showing server device obtaining media mail, analyzing for sensitivity criteria, sending notification to recipient device, and handling user approval or disapproval for playback.Search in Eureka ↗ | Flow diagram |
| FIG. 4 | Flow diagram of process 400 showing sending device generating media mail, analyzing for sensitivity, sending notification or delivering mail based on sensitivity determination and user approval.Search in Eureka ↗ | Flow diagram |
| FIG. 5A | User interface 500 showing lock screen of computing device 508 with notification display area 502 presenting email notification 506 and sensitive content warning notification 504.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 5B | User interface 512 showing notification message 518 alerting user to sensitive content with VIEW button 516 and DISCARD button 514 for user approval or disapproval of media playback.Search in Eureka ↗ | Claim support |
| FIG. 5C | User interface 520 showing media message playback screen with video content 522 of two people dancing and media playback controls after user approval.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 5D | User interface 524 showing voicemail list view with media mails 526, 528, 530, 532 — some flagged with "MAY CONTAIN SENSITIVE CONTENT" warnings — along with deleted messages 534 and blocked messages 536 sections.Search in Eureka ↗ | UI/interface |
| FIG. 6 | Block diagram of example computing device 600 showing processor 604, memory interface 602, peripherals interface 606, memory 650 with message content analysis instructions 672, wireless comm subsystem 624, audio subsystem 626, camera subsystem 620, and I/O subsystem 640.Search in Eureka ↗ | System architecture |
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Claims
Claim Architecture Analysis
The patent presents 3 independent claims covering a non-transitory computer readable medium (Claim 1 — CRM), a method (Claim 15), and a system comprising processors and a CRM (Claim 20), providing a tripartite enforcement structure across different claim types. The 17 dependent claims yield a 5.67:1 dependent-to-independent ratio, which is above the typical 4–5:1 norm for software/content-analysis patents in class G06V, indicating reasonable fallback layering. Claims 1, 15, and 20 share nearly identical independent limitations, which is strategically appropriate for enforcement breadth but creates prosecution vulnerability if any single limitation is narrowed across all three claim types simultaneously.
Core inventive concept: The independent claims address the problem of users being unexpectedly exposed to sensitive, offensive, or vulgar media content received via media mail by reciting: analyzing media content against sensitivity criteria, displaying a first alert to the user on the recipient device when sensitivity criteria are met, and only initiating playback upon receiving explicit user input approving playback. This gating mechanism — analyze, alert, then require affirmative approval before playback — is the core claim limitation across Claims 1, 15, and 20.
Independent Claim Dissection
| Claim | Preamble | Transition | Key Body Elements |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim 1 | A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more sequences of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations | comprising | receiving first media mail targeting first user; analyzing first set of media content to determine it meets first set of sensitivity criteria; displaying first alert on first recipient device associated with sensitivity criteria; receiving first user input approving playback; initiating playback of first set of media content on first recipient deviceSearch prior art ↗ |
| Claim 15 | A method | comprising | receiving first media mail by first recipient device targeting first user; analyzing first set of media content to determine it meets first set of sensitivity criteria; displaying first alert on first recipient device associated with sensitivity criteria; receiving first user input approving playback; initiating playback on first recipient deviceSearch prior art ↗ |
| Claim 20 | A system | comprising | one or more processors; non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions causing processors to: receive first media mail targeting first user; analyze first set of media content to meet sensitivity criteria; display first alert on first recipient device; receive first user input approving playback; initiate playback on first recipient deviceSearch prior art ↗ |
Claim Dependency Tree
1 CRM — receive media mail, analyze for sensitivity criteria, display alert, receive approval, initiate playbackSearch Claim 1 prior art ↗
2 Adds: second device generated media content by recording sound/video after unanswered call and transmitted to first recipient deviceSearch in Eureka ↗
3 Adds: concurrently with displaying first alert, displaying UI elements allowing approval or declining of playbackSearch in Eureka ↗
4 Adds: displaying notification of receipt of first media mail in a list of mail notifications comprising media mail and voicemailSearch in Eureka ↗
5 Further: receiving second user input selecting the notification, wherein first alert is displayed responsive to selecting the notificationSearch in Eureka ↗
6 Adds: receiving second media mail with second set of media content; analyzing second set; displaying second alert; receiving second user input declining playback; refraining from initiating playback of second setSearch in Eureka ↗
7 Adds: first set of sensitivity criteria is a global set utilized by plurality of recipient devicesSearch in Eureka ↗
8 Adds: first set is user-specific sensitivity criteria; determining criteria based on user input selecting attributesSearch in Eureka ↗
9 Adds: second recipient device receives same media mail; analyzes for second set of sensitivity criteria; displays second alert; receives second user input approving playback on second recipient deviceSearch in Eureka ↗
10 Adds: training ML model on training data to compute sensitivity scores; applying ML model to compute sensitivity score; determining score meets criteria; receiving feedback; updating ML modelSearch in Eureka ↗
11 Adds: training ML model to compute sets of sensitivity criteria using approval/disapproval training data; applying ML model to target dataset to compute first set of sensitivity criteriaSearch in Eureka ↗
12 Adds: analyzing comprises determining at least one of: vulgar content, nudity, adult-rated content, user-specified sensitive contentSearch in Eureka ↗
13 Adds: computing sensitivity criteria based on user relationship between first user and second user of sending deviceSearch in Eureka ↗
14 Adds: computing sensitivity criteria based on whether second user's information is included in contact list stored by first user deviceSearch in Eureka ↗
15 Method — receive media mail, analyze for sensitivity criteria, display alert, receive approval, initiate playbackSearch Claim 15 prior art ↗
16 Adds: second device generated media content by recording sound/video after unanswered call and transmitted to first recipient deviceSearch in Eureka ↗
17 Adds: concurrently with displaying first alert, displaying UI elements allowing approval or declining of playbackSearch in Eureka ↗
18 Adds: displaying notification of receipt in list of mail notifications comprising media mail and voicemailSearch in Eureka ↗
19 Further: receiving second user input selecting notification, wherein first alert is displayed responsive to selecting notificationSearch in Eureka ↗
20 System — processors and CRM, receive media mail, analyze for sensitivity criteria, display alert, receive approval, initiate playbackSearch Claim 20 prior art ↗
| Metric | This Application | Software / Cloud Norm |
|---|---|---|
| Total claims | 20 | 15 – 25 |
| Independent claim count | 3 | 2 – 4 |
| Dependent : Independent ratio | 5.67 : 1 | 4 – 7 : 1 |
| Method claims present? | Yes — Claim 15 | Common |
| System / apparatus claims? | Yes — Claim 20 | Common |
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Drafting Quality
Drafting Quality Signals
The claim set exhibits strong tripartite structural coverage across CRM, method, and system claim types, and Claim 10's ML model training and feedback loop limitation adds a meaningful technical differentiator over simpler rule-based filtering. However, the near-identical independent claims (1, 15, 20) create a significant §101 Alice vulnerability — the entire claim set could collapse under a single rejection targeting the abstract idea of "notifying a user of potentially sensitive content before displaying it."
✅
Antecedent Basis
The claims consistently use "the first set of media content" after introducing "a first set of media content" in the preamble of each independent claim, and "the first user input" after introducing "a first user input" — both are clean. Claim 9 introduces "a second recipient device" and subsequently uses "the second recipient device" properly throughout. No unresolved antecedent basis issues were identified across all 20 claims.
✅
Spec–Claim Consistency
The independent claim limitation of "displaying a first alert... associated with the first set of one or more sensitivity criteria" maps directly to FIG. 5A (notification 504 "MEDIA MESSAGE MAY CONTAIN SENSITIVE CONTENT") and FIG. 5B (interface 518 with VIEW/DISCARD options), as described in paragraphs [0075] and [0148]. The ML model training limitation of Claim 10 is supported extensively in paragraphs [0037]–[0052] and FIG. 1B (ML model engine 120, sensitivity scores 128). All claim limitations have identifiable spec support.
✅
Transition Word Usage
All three independent claims (1, 15, 20) use "comprising" as the transition, which is the broadest available transition and appropriate for software/method claims in this technology area. "Comprising" permits additional unlisted operations without limiting enforcement scope. No narrowing transitions such as "consisting of" or "consisting essentially of" appear anywhere in the claim set, reflecting sound prosecution strategy.
✅
§112(f) Means-Plus-Function Risk
Paragraph [0175] explicitly disclaims §112(f) intent: "applicants wish to note that they do not intend any of the appended claims or claim elements to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) unless the words 'means for' or 'step for' are explicitly used in the particular claim." No claim uses "means for" or "step for" language. All functional limitations in Claims 1, 15, and 20 (e.g., "analyzing," "displaying," "initiating") are method-step-style recitations that avoid §112(f) treatment.
⚠️
§101 Eligibility Risk
Claims 1, 15, and 20 are highly susceptible to Alice Step 2A rejection as directed to the abstract idea of "analyzing content for sensitivity and notifying a user before playback" — a concept that could be performed mentally or via conventional notification practices. The CRM tie-in in Claim 1 provides some hardware anchor, but the claim's operations are entirely functional with no structural computing element differentiating from conventional messaging platforms. Claims 10 and 11's ML model training limitations are the strongest §101 defense, but these are only in dependent claims, leaving all three independent claims exposed without this protection.
✅
Dependent Claim Fallback Quality
The dependent claims add genuinely distinct technical positions: Claim 10 introduces ML model training with feedback updating (a strong differentiator), Claim 13 adds relationship-based sensitivity criteria computation, Claim 14 adds contact-list-based criteria, and Claim 9 covers multi-recipient device scenarios. However, Claims 16–19 (dependent on Claim 15) largely replicate the subject matter of Claims 2–5 (dependent on Claim 1), which are themselves replicated in structure, providing only parallel format coverage rather than truly distinct fallback positions.
⚠️
Abstract Quality
The abstract accurately describes the recipient-device embodiment but does not reference the ML model-based sensitivity scoring (the most technically differentiated element), the multi-device group call scenario, or the sending-device analysis pathway. An examiner reading only the abstract may classify this as a standard content-filtering notification patent without appreciating the machine learning dimension that provides the strongest §101 and novelty defense. The abstract's omission of ML functionality represents a missed opportunity to characterize the invention's technical core.
✅
Figure Support Quality
All structural claim limitations have figure support: the "first alert" limitation maps to FIGS. 5A and 5B; the "first user input approving playback" maps to FIG. 5B (VIEW button 516); the ML model training of Claim 10 maps to FIG. 1B (ML model engine 120); the notification list display of Claims 4 and 18 maps to FIG. 5D. The computing device architecture of FIG. 6 supports the CRM and system claims. No independent claim limitation lacks direct figure correspondence.
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka. Patent text and figures publicly available from USPTO. Draft a Similar Patent
Scorecard
Strategic Intent Scorecard
Multi-dimensional assessment of this application's patent strategy quality, based on claim structure, specification depth, and prosecution positioning.
Claim Breadth
3.5
Prosecution Defensibility
3
Spec–Claim Consistency
4.5
Dependent Claim Coverage
3.5
Claim Type Diversity
4.5
Figure Support Quality
4.5
Key observation: Spec–Claim Consistency and Figure Support Quality are the strongest dimensions (both 4.5/5.0), reflecting Apple's thorough documentation practice — every claim limitation maps to a named figure element and a specific paragraph, with FIG. 1B and FIG. 5A–5D providing comprehensive UI and architecture coverage. Prosecution Defensibility is the weakest dimension (3.0/5.0) because all three independent claims are purely functional without structural ML or hardware-anchoring limitations, leaving them exposed to Alice Step 2A rejection as abstract ideas about notifying users of content sensitivity — a risk that could have been mitigated by incorporating the ML model training language of dependent Claim 10 into at least one independent claim. Practitioners should consider a continuation filing that elevates the ML training and feedback updating limitations into an independent claim to create a more §101-hardened independent claim for litigation leverage.
See how your own draft compares — Open Eureka IP Drafting →
Critical Gaps
3 Critical Gaps in This Claim Set
A senior-attorney lens on the three highest-priority structural weaknesses — what each exposes in prosecution and litigation, and what a stronger filing would have done differently.
🔒
3 Critical Gaps in This Claim Set
See the full attorney-level analysis of what this application leaves unprotected — and how to draft it more defensively for your own filings.
ML training stranded in dependent claims No server-side independent claim Sending-device pathway lacks independent claim
Unlock Full Analysis — Free Frequently asked questions
US 2024/0404280 A1 — key questions answered
Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them from patent data instantly. Search in Eureka
Disclaimer: This analysis is generated by PatSnap Eureka AI based on publicly available patent data from the USPTO. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Patent data may be subject to change as prosecution progresses. Scores and assessments reflect automated analysis and may not capture all relevant legal or technical nuances. Always consult a qualified patent attorney for formal legal opinions on patentability, freedom to operate, or infringement.
Ask anything about this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and data to answer instantly.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard