DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the above identified application filed on June 05, 2026. The application contains claims 1-49:
Claims 1-28 were previously cancelled
Claims 29, 34-36, 41-43, 48, and 49 are amended
Claims 29-49 are pending
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 05, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on June 05, 2026 have been fully considered and the objections and rejections are updated accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendments to the claims do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
In response to Applicant’s 1st argument on page 2 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment that is quoted below, the examiner disagrees.
“Applicant maintains that, even if the claims include subject matter that could be deemed an abstract idea and thus a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claimed invention as a whole ties that subject matter to a specific practical application that is really not an abstract concept, and so, according to Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are patent eligible. For example, the pending claims recite:
generate a recommendation associated with media, the recommendation based on an ordering of the first scalar value and the second scalar value;
transmit at least a portion of the media identified as part of the generated recommendation to the device; and
cause, in response to the transmission of at least a portion of the media identified as part of the generated recommendation, the media player of the device to access a playlist of the transmitted portion of the media.
Generating a recommendation based on an ordering of the first scalar value and the second scalar value reflecting an artist and event as in the present claims is a practical application. Further, causing a media player of a device to access a playlist based on such a recommendation as in the present claims is a practical application. These are not generalized abstract concepts or mere extra- solution activity, and the Examiner did not provide evidence or a rationale to the contrary. Rather, these are parts of the solution itself.”
As discussed below, the underlined part in “generate a recommendation associated with media, the recommendation based on an ordering of the first scalar value and the second scalar value” is indefinite with no support in the original disclosure. And the limitation is recited at a high level of generality without any specifics on how the first or second scalar values are based on to generate a recommendation. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., media recommendations, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The examiner also notes how specifically the media recommendations are made is at the center of the claimed invention because the application is directed to making such media recommendations. What happens after the recommendations have been made, for example, “transmit at least a portion of the media identified …” and “cause …the media player … to access a playlist of the transmitted portion of the media” constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly post-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g). As explained in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections below, transmitting information and accessing transmitted information are claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [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)]. The device accessing the generated recommendation is claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55].
In response to Applicant’s 2nd argument on page 2 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment that is quoted below, the examiner disagrees.
“The recited features of generating a recommendation based on an ordering of the first scalar value and the second scalar value reflecting an artist and event, for instance, and causing a media player to access an associated playlist based on the recommendation, would not preempt an abstract idea, and the Examiner did not establish that they would.”
The examiner notes the recitations of an artist and an event related vectors merely limit the use of the abstract idea to the music-related field. These limitations are not sufficient to make the claim eligible, because the artist and event related vectors are not only recited at a high-level of generality but also do not alter or affect how the process steps of recommendations are performed. In addition, these limitations do not amount to an inventive concept.
Please refer to MPEP 2106.05(h) for the following discussion: “The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token postsolution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons." 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 196. Processes for the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons were used in the petrochemical and oil-refining fields. Id. Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. Instead, the additional element in Flook regarding the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons was not sufficient to make the claim eligible, because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed. Further, the Supreme Court found that this limitation did not amount to an inventive concept. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98. The Court reasoned that to hold otherwise would "exalt[] form over substance", because a competent claim drafter could attach a similar type of limitation to almost any mathematical formula. 437 U.S. at 590, 198 USPQ at 197.”
In response to Applicant’s 3rd argument on page 3 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment that is quoted below, the examiner disagrees.
“Further, the claimed invention implements a practical solution to the problem of failing "to include features that accurately account for the great number of nuances that exist in user preferences and have failed to set forth a logical method for synthesizing and querying recommendations of higher level entities (e.g., entities further removed from a media sample) like events and venues," as discussed in the specification, for instance, at paragraph 0014.”
The examiner notes, other than high level vector operations and high-level recitations of event and artist related vectors, the claim language contains no specific claim elements about what event and artist attributes “account for the great number of nuances that exist in user preferences” and how they are involved in the media recommendation process as argued by Applicant.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections to claims 29-49 for being directed to an abstract idea are updated and maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 35, 42, and 49 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 35, line 2: “at least one a song, …” misses an “of” between “at least one” and “a song”.
Claim 42, lines 2-3: “at least one a song, …” misses an “of” between “at least one” and “a song”.
Claim 49, line 2: “at least one a song, …” misses an “of” between “at least one” and “a song”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 29, 36, and 43 each recite the limitation " generate/generating a recommendation associated with media, the recommendation based on an ordering of the first scalar value and the second scalar value" in lines 18-20, 18-20, and 16-18, respectively. The underlined was not disclosed in the originally filed specification, neither can it be properly understood in the claimed context. Therefore, claims 29, 36, and 43 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent claims 30-35, 37-42, and 44-49 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claims 29, 36, and 43, respectively.
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 29-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The 2019 PEG guidance for subject matter eligibility is applied in the following analyses:
At Step 1
The inventions of claims 29-49 are directed to the statutory categories of a machine (claims 29-35), a manufacture (claims 36-42), and a process (claims 43-49). Thus, the claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter.
The following analysis refers to representative claim 29, but the same analysis applies to independent claims 36 and 43, which recite similar limitations.
At Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 29, 36, and 43 each recite abstract ideas in the following limitations:
“determine (a) a first result vector based on a first comparison of a query attribute vector and an event attribute vector, and (b) a second result vector based on a second comparison of the query attribute vector and an artist attribute vector, wherein the query attribute vector is based on one or more attribute vectors associated with a media player of a device”. Per paragraph [0109], the comparison is done by taking the absolute value of the difference between the attribute vector and the query attribute vector, which determines a result vector by involving simple mathematics that can be practically performed in the human mind with or without a pen and paper. The limitation “wherein the query attribute vector is based on one or more attribute vectors associated with a media player of a device” is non-functional descriptive language describing “the query attribute vector”. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“apply (c) a first weight vector to the first result vector to determine a first weighted result vector and (d) a second weight vector to the second result vector to determine a second weighted result vector, the first weight vector corresponding to the event attribute vector, the second weight vector corresponding to the artist attribute vector”. Per paragraph [0112], applying a weight vector to the result vector uses element-wise multiplication to multiply each weight to the corresponding attribute in the result vector, which determines a weighted result vector by involving simple mathematical vector operations that can be performed in the human mind with or without a pen and paper. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
“determine a first scalar value representative of the first weighted result vector and a second scalar value representative of the second weighted result vector”. Per paragraph [0110], a scalar result (“scalar value”), which is represented by the variable delta (Δ) in Equation 3, is the Euclidian norm or the Euclidian distance, etc. of the weighted result vector, which apparently involves mathematical vector operations that can be performed in the human mind with or without a pen and paper. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process.
At Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite the additional elements of:
“a vector comparator”, “an attribute vector aggregator”, “a recommendation generator” and “processor circuitry” (claim 36) may be characterized as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
“generate a recommendation associated with media, the recommendation based on an ordering of the first scalar value and the second scalar value”. The generating step is recited at a high level of generality without any specifics on how the first or second scalar values are based on to generate a recommendation. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., media recommendations, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
“transmit/transmitting at least a portion of the media identified as part of the generated recommendation to the device; and cause, in response to the transmission of at least a portion of the media identified as part of the generated recommendation, the media player of the device to access a playlist of the transmitted portion of the media” may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly post-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B
Claims 29, 36, and 43 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above the additional elements constitute a high-level recitation of a generic computer components to implement an abstract idea on a computer or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., media recommendations, and insignificant extra-solution activities, particularly, post-solution activity.
As per MPEP 2106.05(II), at Step 2B the conclusions for these additional elements under MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h) from Step 2A Prong Two are carried over and they do not provide significantly more. The additional elements from Step 2A Prong Two considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g) are re-evaluated as follows:
“transmit/transmitting at least a portion of the media identified as part of the generated recommendation to the device; and cause, in response to the transmission of at least a portion of the media identified as part of the generated recommendation, the media player of the device to access a playlist of the transmitted portion of the media”. Transmitting information is claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [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)]. The device accessing the generated recommendation is claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55].
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claims 29, 36, and 43 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 30-32, 37-39, and 44-46 each recite additional elements elaborating on the further details of the abstract idea in independent claims 29, 36, and 43 that are still mentally performable.
Dependent claims 33-35, 40-42, and 47-49 each recite additional elements that generally link the abstract idea to a technological area, e.g., media recommendations, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, dependent claims 30-35, 37-42, and 44-49 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOQIN HU whose telephone number is (571)272-1792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/XIAOQIN HU/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights