DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 10, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 4, 7-9, 13, 15, 16, 19, 23, and 24 are canceled.
No newly added claims.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-12, 14, 17, 18, 20-22, 25-27 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the amendment filed on 4/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in new ground of rejection.
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 1-3, 5, 6, 10-12, 14, 17, 18, 20-22, 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite various steps that are a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Independent claims 1, 10 and 17 recites the steps that are directed to a patent-ineligible concept such as: Mathematical concepts and data processing, reciting steps of: calculating duration times, determining similarity scores, and picking the higher number is related to mathematical concepts and data processing. Claims further recites steps of automatic collection, comparison, and data analysis such as viewing history of human habits, that is related to method of organizing human activity.
Claims merely taking a process that exists in the real world such as analyzing media habits, using some rules such as partitioning of viewing session, and selecting who watched the media session that is doing on a computer is not generally enough to overcome abstract idea rejection. These claims uses a standard computing system comprising, a processor, and memory to perform steps of, identifying, comparing, and selecting—are described at a high level of functional, results-oriented language. It essentially instructs a generic computer to execute mathematical algorithms without providing a specific, novel technological improvement to the computer itself, it lacks an inventive concept. Nor are the steps recited in claims 1, 10 and 17 implemented using a specialized machine, because these steps are performed by a general purpose computer. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Additionally, even mental processes which may need the physical aids such as pen and paper can be still mental processes (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B)) and even the fact that the claimed invention is performing steps on a computer does not prevent the function from being a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For reasons given above, the claims do not provide improvements to a computer, are not applied using a particular machine, and are only linked to a general technological environment.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 18, 20-22, 25-27 recite nothing more than well understood, routine and conventional features, such as organizing human activities such as averaging duration of viewing sessions, determining change in information grouping or patronizing, using the general purpose computer such as set-top box and conventional display device. These claims provide nothing beyond the abstract idea that integrates the judicial exception into an abstract idea or amounts to significantly more, thus are likewise ineligible under §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKSHAY DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, JOHN W MILLER can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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.
/A.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights