DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the above identified application filed on March 19, 2026. The application contains claims 1-49:
Claims 1-28 were previously cancelled
Claims 29, 36, and 43 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 .
Examiner’s Note
The amended claims 29-35 are interpreted to include hardware structure based on the disclosure in the following paragraphs of the specification:
[0066] The example vector comparator 530 in the illustrated example of FIG. 5 is implemented by a logic circuit such as, for example, a hardware processor.
[0056] The example attribute vector aggregator 425 in the illustrated example of FIG. 4 is implemented by a logic circuit such as, for example, a hardware processor.
[0074] the example recommendation generator 223 of FIG. 5 could be implemented by one or more analog or digital circuit(s), logic circuits, programmable processor(s), programmable controller(s), graphics processing unit(s) (GPU(s)), digital signal processor(s) (DSP(s)), application specific integrated circuit(s) (ASIC(s)), programmable logic device(s) (PLD(s)) and/or field programmable logic device(s) (FPLD(s)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on March 19, 2026 have been fully considered and the objections and rejections are updated accordingly.
Claim Objections
In view of the amendments to the claims, the claim objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendments to the claims, the 35 USC § 112(b) rejections to claims 36-42 are withdrawn.
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.
“… While the Office Action alleges that the limitations can be practically performed in the mind, Applicant submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that performing vector processing and vector aggregation as recited by the pending claims far exceeds mere observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Moreover, Applicant submits that the vector comparison and vector aggregation recited by the amended claims reflect operations that are inherently an operation performed by a computing device and not practically performed in the mind. Id.”
The examiner notes vector is a mathematical concept that comes with a set of defined mathematical operations for vector comparison and other processing. The specification in paragraph [0043] states “An example manner of aggregating attribute vectors is averaging them without weighting and is shown in Equation 1 below”. Equation 1 is pure mathematical calculation that can be practically performed in the human mind with or without the help of a pen and paper.
In response to Applicant’s 2nd argument on page 2 and 3 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment that is quoted below, the examiner disagrees.
“… In other words, causing the access of media identified as part of the recommendation generation at a media play of the device cannot be overlooked or simply characterized as a mental process when a change of state is experienced at the media player of the device.” (page 2)
“… In other words, the claimed recitation is not merely the generation of a recommendation that can be characterized as a mental process but instead involves the display and execution of the media identified as part of the recommendation being implemented on a device. Applicant submits that this display and implementation of the identified media reflect a practical application.” (page 3)
The examiner notes transmitting recommended media to be played at a media player of a device may be characterized as 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 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].
In response to Applicant’s 3rd argument on pages 3-4 of Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment that is quoted below, the examiner disagrees.
“… The recited functionality accurately accounts for the great number of nuances in user preferences including recommendations of higher level entities such as events and venues as discussed in the specification. ...”
The examiner notes, other than high level vector operations, the claim language contains no specific claim elements that “account for the great number of nuances in user preferences including recommendations of higher level entities such as events and venues” 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 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, the query attribute vector based on one or more attribute vectors associated with a media player of a device, and (b) a second result vector based on a second comparison of the query attribute vector and an artist attribute vector”. 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 “the query attribute vector 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 at least one of the first scalar value or 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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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