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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 16/106,817, filed on August 21, 2018. In response to Examiner's Non-Final Office Action dated February 11, 2026, Applicant on May 11, 2026, amended claims 38 and 48. Claims 38-57 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicants remarks and amendments to claims 38 and 48.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed May 11, 2026 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed May 11, 2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, Applicant the characterization of independent claim 38 advanced in the Office Action treats independent claim 38 as though it were nothing more than a business method for serving advertisements based on viewer behavior. That characterization impermissibly oversimplifies the claim. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly cautioned against describing claims "at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims [that it] all but ensures that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule." (See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016).) The proper Prong (1) inquiry is whether the character of currently amended independent claim 38 as a whole is directed to a judicial exception, or whether its focus is instead on a specific technological improvement. (Id. at 1335; see also MPEP § 2106.04(d).)
Applicant respectfully submits that currently amended independent claim 38, read as a whole, is not directed to the abstract idea of managing personal behavior or commercial advertising activity. It is directed to a specific, technically constrained engagement-measurement and self-retraining architecture having, among other concrete features, all of the following (see p. 13-14, Applicant Remarks).
These are not generalized organizational or commercial steps that humans have historically performed with pen and paper. A human reviewer cannot, and historically did not, receive telemetry heartbeats from a remote playback device, weight session data by concurrent secondary device usage, and in real time substitute an alternate video content stream while the viewer is mid-stream. (See page 14, lines 7-12 and page 16, lines 1-11 of the present application.) These are technical operations performed on, by, and through the claimed computing platform. Currently amended independent claim 38 therefore does not fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as defined in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), because currently amended independent claim 38 is not practicable as a human activity and does not merely organize one.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds Applicant arguments are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims; see MPEP 2106.05(h). The mere fact that a claim applies specific techniques to achieve desired result is never, in itself, justification for the allowance of such a claim”. Merely confining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not establish a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. “A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit.” In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Examiner maintains the claims recite the assessment of user engagement related to video content to create key performance indicators used to alter a modification process, which constitutes certain methods of organizing human activity based on managing personal behavior or relationships between people, as well as, commercial interactions related to advertising, marking or sales behaviors.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, Applicant states the focus of currently amended independent claim 38 is a specific improvement to the content assessment software itself: the software learns to modify how it weighs behavioral inputs and what data it solicits from client devices, and it does so through a defined comparison of engagement metrics. That is analogous to the self-referential table in Enfish, which was patent eligible at Prong One because its focus was "on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . rather than on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." (Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36.) It is also analogous to the claimed rules in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the Federal Circuit rejected the very argument the Office advances here, i.e., that the claims "simply use a computer as a tool to automate conventional activity," because "it is the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that improved the existing technological process." Here, as in McRO, it is the specific self-retraining rules that drive the claimed improvement, not the generic recitation of a processor and memory. Thus, Applicant respectfully asserts that currently amended independent claim 38 is directed to patent eligible subject matter under Step 2A, Prong (1).
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the previous Office Action, Examiner finds the present claims are not comparable to the technical improvements disclosed in Enfish and/or McRO. In regards to Enfish, the claims assert improvements in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database, which achieves benefits over conventional databases). Enfish disclosed sufficient support in the specification that the claims were directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. In regards to McRO, the claims demonstrated improvements to a specific technological process (i.e., lip synchronization and manipulation of character facial expressions), thus improving computer animation without requiring an artist's constant intermediation with significant support in the specification.
Examiner finds Applicant’s invention aims to solve a business problem— media content assessment—rather than a technological one. Examiner finds Applicant arguments are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims; see MPEP 2106.05(h). Applicant is describing the use of the additional elements as tools to improve the business process without any improvement to how the additional elements function, reflecting and/or submitting that the technology used is being improved or there was a technical problem with the technology that the claimed invention solves. Examiner maintains the additional elements as currently claimed are used as generic tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea, which does integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f), requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, Applicant submits that even if, arguendo, currently amended independent claim 38 is drawn to a judicial exception (which Applicant does not concede to be so), any such recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application based on the current amended independent claim 38, which establishes a concrete technological improvement to the functioning of the content assessment software and to the data acquisition operation of the computing platform itself. (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1); MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Applicant respectfully submits that the amended machine learning limitation does not merely "apply" an abstract idea using a computer. It recites a closed-loop, self-modifying architecture in which the software alters its own weighting function based on KPIs computed from the engagement level comparison, and in which the resulting altered modification process is then applied to further video content. This is a concrete change in how the software itself operates, including what inputs it weighs and how it weighs them. That is precisely the kind of improvement the Federal Circuit found sufficient in Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338 ("the claims are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate"), and the kind of specific technical rule-set deemed eligible in McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316.
Currently amended independent claim 38 further requires that the machine learning alter the composition of the usage data received as periodic telemetry heartbeats. In other words, the platform reconfigures what it collects from the remote playback device based on what it has
learned. That is a technical change in how the distributed computing system operates, not a business method abstraction. This counters the objection in the Office Action that the heartbeats amount to "insignificant extra-solution activity" of "collecting and delivering data." (See page 15 of the Office Action.) Under MPEP § 2106.05(g), the extra-solution inquiry depends on whether the data gathering is nominal or tangential to the claimed invention. Here, the data included in the telemetry heartbeat is not tangential, rather it is an output of and an input to the very machine learning loop the claim recites. Because the data gathering step is dynamically determined by the claimed self-improvement mechanism, it is integral to, and not extra-solution to, the claimed system. (See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (eligibility inquiry asks whether the additional element is more than "mere data gathering" and is specifically tied to the claimed process).
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains the present claims do not recite similar improvements to McRO for reasons stated above. Examiner notes in Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision), the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting”, and the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. The improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation. Examiner again finds no similar improvement in the present claims. Applicant is describing the use of the additional elements as tools to automate the assessment of user engagement related to video content to generate key performance indicators used to alter a modification process without any improvement to how the machine learning functions, reflecting and/or submitting that the technology used is being improved or there was a technical problem with the technology that the claimed invention solves. Examiner maintains the additional elements recited in the claim function as intended with no improvement to the technology. Examiner asserts the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, Applicant states currently amended independent claim 38 further recites that the modified video content is generated in real-time and provided as a substitute for the original video content while the consumer is consuming it. That real-time substitution is a particular, technically grounded operation of the claimed architecture. It is not a mental step, not a business method step, and not something a human could perform. (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2) (improvements to technology or a technical field integrate an exception into a practical application).)
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that currently amended independent claim 38 does not preempt the asserted abstract idea. The specific combination of features: scene-based and shot-based segregation of timecode intervals, a weighting function applied to behavioral signals of distraction, a two-option real-time modification process, and a KPI-driven retraining of both that weighting function and the telemetry heartbeat composition leaves room in the art for others to engage in targeted advertising or engagement analysis using other techniques. Preemption concerns, which are crucial to § 101 analysis, are therefore not present. (See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15 (specific structure of claimed rules avoided broad preemption).)
Taken together, the features described above demonstrate that currently amended independent claim 38 does far more than "apply" a business concept on a generic computer. It recites a particular technical architecture that improves the operation of the claimed software and of the data acquisition behavior of the platform on which it runs. Under MPEP § 2106.04(d) and the controlling precedent, that is sufficient to integrate any purportedly abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, for these additional reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that currently amended independent claim 38 is directed to patent eligible subject matter, under Step 2A, Prong (2).
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes Applicants arguments are moot because Examiner never referred to any of the claim limitations reciting or being directed to mental processes. However, Examiner does not that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Examiner finds the pending claims recite similar limitations to claims the courts have indicated may not be sufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality, such as accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017), A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Examiner finds the present claims are directed to the data analysis of assessing user engagement to alter a modification process of video content without reciting improvements to a technology, technological field or computer-related technology.
Additionally, Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, although preemption is considered, the two-part analysis is used to determine patent eligibility. Preemption concerns are, thus fully addressed and rendered moot where a claim is determined to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the two-part framework. While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10-11 n.14 (1981) ("We rejected in Flook the argument that because all possible uses of the mathematical formula were not pyre-emptied, the claim should be eligible for patent protection").
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, Applicant for the sake of completeness, applying the second step of the analysis, Applicant respectfully submits that the elements of currently amended independent claim 38, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The Step 2B analysis in the Office Action relies on the premise that independent claim 38 uses only generic computer components performing generic computer functions (receiving, storing, transmitting data). (See page 16 of the Office Action.) However, Applicant respectfully submits that the current amendment of independent claim 38 overcomes that premise. The recited machine learning feedback loop in which a comparison of different sets of engagement levels produces KPIs that in turn alter both the weighting function and the composition of the periodic telemetry heartbeats, is not a generic, well-understood, routine, or conventional computing function. (See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (whether an element is well-understood, routine, and conventional is a question of fact that cannot be resolved by attorney argument alone); see also MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I).)
Applicant respectfully submits that the ordered combination recited by currently amended independent claim 38 is also inventive in the sense that BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), found sufficient: even assuming the individual components are familiar, their particular arrangement, i.e., a self-retraining engagement assessment system that alters its own data intake composition based on observed engagement behavior, and that substitutes modified video content in real time, is a non- conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces that confers eligibility under Step 2B.
Applicant notes that the specific case law citations in the Step 2B analysis of the Office Action, i.e., Symantec, buySAFE, Ultramercial, Versata, and OIP Technologies, address claims that recited nothing more than receive, forward, store, and retrieve data over a network. (See page 16 of the Office Action.) By contrast, currently amended independent claim 38 recites materially different subject matter: a self-modifying training process that changes the weighting function applied by content assessment software and dictates what data the platform collects. None of the cited cases addressed, much less rejected, that kind of limitation.
Thus, for the all of the reasons presented above, Applicant respectfully submits that currently amended independent claim 38 is directed to patentable subject matter. It is noted that independent claim 48 is currently amended to include limitations similar to those recited by currently amended independent claim 38. (See currently amended independent claim 48, above). Consequently, Applicant respectfully asserts that currently amended independent claim 48 is also directed to patentable subject matter for reasons similar to those discussed above. As such, claims 39-47 depending from and further limiting currently amended independent claim 38, and claims 49-57 depending from and further limiting currently amended independent claim 48, are also directed to patentable subject matter. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the present rejection of claims 38-57 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In response Examiner disagrees. For the same reasons as stated above, Examiner finds the present claims do not recite similar improvements to BASCOM. Examiner finds Applicant is attempting to say the Step 2A-Prong One elements, the abstract idea, is what makes the claim eligible. Applicant has provided no detailed explanation to the configuration of the combination of additional elements nor has Applicant identified any disclosure in the claimed invention showing and/or submitting that the ordered combinations of the known elements is significantly more than the abstract idea. The assessment of user engagement, generation of key performance indicators used to alter a modification process for video content is directed to the improvement to an existing business process (i.e., media content assessment) and not to the technology, a technological field or computer-related technology. Applicant is describing the use of the additional elements without disclosing any improvement to how they functions, reflecting and/or submitting that the technology used is being improved or there was a technical problem with the technology that the claimed invention solves.
Additionally, Examiner finds Applicants remarks regarding the Berkheimer Memorandum are moot because the Examiner never referred to or described any of the claim elements as “well-understood, routine and conventional”. Examiner finds the pending claims do not disclose any unconventional computer functions that can be considered significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant has not identified any disclosure that would alter this analysis. For at least these reasons, claims 38-57 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 38-47 are directed towards a system and claims 48-57 are directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 38-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the assessment of user engagement related to video content to generate key performance indicators used to alter a modification process.
Claim 38 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, video content being segregated into a plurality of timecode intervals each corresponding respectively to a scene comprising a plurality of shots of the video content, wherein each of the plurality of shots comprises a sequence of video frames that is captured from a same camera perspective without cinematic transitions including cuts; determine, based on the first session data weighted by a weighting function applied to the first behavioral information indicative of the distraction by the first consumer, a plurality of first engagement levels of the first consumer with the video content, wherein each of the plurality of first engagement levels of the first consumer corresponds to one of the plurality of timecode intervals; apply a modification process to modify the video content for the first consumer based on the plurality of first engagement levels, modification process to modify the video content for the first consumer based on the plurality of first engagement levels, the modification process while including at least one of: (i) redistribution of advertising across the plurality of timecode intervals, or (ii) selection of alternate content for one or more of the plurality of timecode intervals, to generate a modified video content in real-time while the first consumer is consuming the video content; provide the modified video content to the first consumer as a substitute for the video content while the first consumer is consuming the video; determine, based on the second session data weighted by the weighting function applied to the second behavioral information, a plurality of second engagement levels of the first consumer with the modified video content; based on the key performance indicators, (i) alters the weighting function applied to the behavioral information used to determine engagement levels and (ii) alters a composition of the usage data received as the periodic telemetry heartbeats, thereby altering the modification process; and modify another video content, using the altered modification process constitutes methods based on managing personal behavior or relationships between people, as well as, commercial interactions related to advertising, marking or sales behaviors. The recitation of a video content analysis system comprising: a computing platform including a hardware processor and a system memory storing a content assessment software code and machine learning does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 48 recites certain method of organizing human activity for similar reasons as claim 38.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 38 recites receive first usage data as periodic telemetry heartbeats including first session data describing a use of a video content by a first consumer and first behavioral information indicative of distraction by the first consumer during the use of the video content by the first consumer; and receive second usage data as periodic telemetry heartbeats including session data describing a use of the modified video content by the first consumer and second behavioral information indicative of distraction by the first consumer during the use of the modified video content by the first consumer, which are limitations considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 38 recites a video content analysis system comprising: a computing platform including a hardware processor and a system memory storing a content assessment software code at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claim 38 recites improve the content assessment software code by performing a machine learning on training data comprising a comparison of the plurality of second engagement levels with the plurality of first engagement levels, wherein the machine learning generates key performance indicators from the comparison. The general use of a machine learning technique does not provide a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the machine learning models disclosed in the claims are solely used as a tool to perform the instructions of the abstract idea. Thus, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 38 is directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements recited in the method of claim 48 also amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claim 48 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 38.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including the video content analysis system comprising: a computing platform including a hardware processor and a system memory storing a content assessment software code amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). (see at least Specification [0015], [0018]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 41, 42, 47, 51, 52 and 57 recites obtaining and providing limitations respectively, which are considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, Claims 39-47 and 49-57 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claim 38 and 48. Therefore claims 37-47 and 49-57 and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Distinguishable over the Prior Art of Record
The prior art rejections of the amended claims are removed in light of Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed May 11, 2026, in particular pg. 19-27 regarding the prior art of record recited for claims 38 and 48. Examiner analyzed claim 38in view of the prior art on record and finds not all claim limitations are explicitly taught nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it obvious to combine references with a reasonable expectation of success.
Amant teaches behavioral profile content for a particular user may be processed to generate and/or select customized content for consumption by a particular user (see par. 0019). Specifically, Amant discloses machine learning acceleration circuitry, may generate, at least in part, a representation of a particular operator's biological and/or behavioral state, such as behavioral profile content (see par. 0039), user-specific content and/or user-generic content may be processed, such as via machine learning operations, to generate one or more output state vectors, such as behavioral profile content 240 (see par. 0044) and the machine learning, may generate recommendations, such as recommendation parameters, based at least in part on behavioral profile content for a particular user. In this context, “recommendations” refers to one or more indications of suggestions and/or actions that may be taken by one or more individuals, such as altering content presented to the operator in an attempt to grab the operator's interest and/or to otherwise create an increase in operator interest level (see par. 0051-0052). Amant further discloses weighting of inputs for machine-learning units may be determined at least in part based on obtained inputs. For example, a control unit may steer, select, and/or weight intermediary results (e.g., content generated by sensor processing stage) as a function of user/operator identification, content type, environmental context, or sensor availability, or any combination thereof, in an embodiment (see par. 0108).
Garcia (US 20130114864 A1) teaches calculating a probability that a user or set of users will engage with a multimedia object for customizing content in a social networking system (see Abstract). Specifically, Garcia discloses scoring an uploaded multimedia object based on a generative model that predicts how engaging the multimedia object is to all users, a particular user, or a particular set of users (see par. 0020) and calculating a probability of engagement (or "engagement metric"), any suitable mathematical method may be employed. In particular embodiments, genetic algorithms may be utilized. Methods of generating learning models based on observed occurrences are well-known in the art (see par. 0051). Generative model M may correspond to a single user profile, such as user node, group of users, or all users, such as node. Thus, in particular embodiments, the social networking system may have a generalized model for all users as well as a model for each user of the social networking system (see par. 0044).
However, Amant and Garcia, individually or in combination with the prior art of record, does not explicitly teach the combination of claim limitations as recited in independent claims 38. Thus, claim 38 are found to be distinguishable over the prior art. Claim 48 is distinguishable for similar reasons as claim 38.
Dependent claims 39-47 and 49-57 are distinguishable because they depend on claims 38 and 48, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vaughan et al. (US 20190043619 A1) – The methods and apparatus disclosed herein can evaluate a subject for a developmental condition or conditions and provide improved sensitivity and specificity for categorical determinations indicating the presence or absence of the developmental condition by isolating hard-to-screen cases as inconclusive. The methods and apparatus disclosed herein can be configured to be tunable to control the tradeoff between coverage and reliability and to adapt to different application settings and can further be specialized to handle different population groups.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty Munson can be reached on (571)270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights