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 .
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed August 4, 2025. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in the application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/4/2025 has been entered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed toward at least one abstract ideas without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below.
Representative claim 1 is directed towards a method, claim 8 is directed towards a system, claim 15 is directed towards a non-transitory medium, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim however, is directed towards at least one abstract idea. The limitations that set forth the abstract idea recites: determining a predicted favorite score for each of the one or more events personalized for each user, the predicted favorite score based at least in part on the plurality of user features and the plurality of event features, wherein the event features comprise numeric and non-numeric features, and wherein each of the numeric and non-numeric features is associated with a weight; and displaying at least one of the one or more events to the user based at least in part on the personalized predicted favorite score associated with each of the one or more events. These limitations, describe commercial interactions including, marketing or sales activities or and business relations; as well as managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions. As such, the limitations are directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II), and/or Mathematical Concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see 2019 MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim as a whole amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In particular the claim recites the additional elements: receiving, at the client device, a plurality of user features associated with a user; receiving, at the client device from a video event provider, a plurality of event features, each of said event features associated with one or more events, which amounts to necessary data gathering, apparent in implementing the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). While, the limitations, at the client device; at the client device, are recited at a high level of generality and are the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activities and using a computer to apply the abstract idea are not practical applications of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites extra-solution activity and generic computer components. Viewing the limitation individually, the receiving, at the client device, a plurality of user features associated with a user; the receiving, at the client device from a video event provider, a plurality of event features, each of said event features associated with one or more events, are used only for insignificant extra-solution activity because such activities amount to necessary data gathering used to implement the aforementioned abstract concept, see MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have recognized performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing; automating mental tasks and receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)II; Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Moreover, the limitations generically, referring to a client device, a processor and memory (claim 8) also do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as a combination, the additional elements amount to no more than merely applying the exception using generic computer system. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
An analysis of dependent claims 2-7, likewise, do not provide any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above. The claims only further add to the abstract idea, with no elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. For instance, claims 4-6 provide for machine learning models to calculate a score. This amounts to merely using a computer algorithm as a tool, to perform an abstract idea. Thus, while the dependent claims may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 8-20 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claims 1-8 and are also rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7-11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadhawan (US Publication 2020/0160961) in view of Singh (US Publication 2020/0334641).
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15, Wadhawan teaches a method, system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising:
receiving at a client device, a plurality of user features associated with a user; Wadhawan [0029: user first installs the native application on her mobile device or navigates to a webpage associated with the fitness platform via a web browser on her mobile device, the computer system can present a survey—via the native application or webpage—to the user, such as including a prompt to indicate: the user's current fitness level; demographic information of the user; the user's music preferences; the user's preferred exercise types; and/or a fitness-related goal. The computer system can then store these user data in a user profile associated with the user];
receiving, at the client device from a video event provider, a plurality of event features, each of said event features associated with one or more video events; Wadhawan [0010: computer system can include a remote server that hosts or interfaces with a class database containing a corpus of prerecorded classes; computer system can host or interface with a native application or web browser executing on a user's computing device (e.g., a smartphone, a tablet, a smart television) to serve selected classes to the user; 0013: upon selection of the first class by the user at the native application, the native application can retrieve (e.g., download, stream) this first class from the class database and initiate playback of this first class—such as an audio track and/or a video track; 0042: when the user accesses the fitness platform via the native application at the start of an exercise session, the native application can: access a list of difficulties of classes completed by the user prior to the exercise session; estimate a target difficulty for the exercise session based on this list of difficulties; and query the user—via the native application—for an available exercise time for the exercise session];
determining, at the client device, a predicted favorite score for each of the one or more video events personalized for each user, the predicted favorite score based at least in part on the plurality of user features and the plurality of event features; Wadhawan [0032: system can: aggregate an initial list of highest-ranking classes (e.g., classes that the user is predicted to complete with greatest probability) that fulfill the user's music preferences and that are of class types preferred by the user; and present this initial list of classes to the user's computing device; 0037: computer system can rank, or score classes in the class database based on: proximity of their difficulty levels to the target difficulty level calculated for the user; proximity of song titles to derived music preferences of the user; proximity of trainer styles and trainer support scores in these classes to the derived trainer preferences of the user; 0042: computer system can then calculate a ranking of classes based on: proximity of difficulty levels associated with these classes to the target difficulty calculated for the user; and proximity of durations of these classes to the available exercise time specified by the user];
and displaying at the client device, at least one of the one or more events to the user based at least in part on the personalized predicted favorite score associated with each of the one or more video events. Wadhawan [0032: present this initial list of classes to the user's computing device; 0042: computer system can calculate a ranking of classes; computer system can then interface with the native application to present classes to the user according to this ranking in (near) real-time]
Wadhawan does not specifically disclose, wherein the event features comprise numeric and non-numeric features, and wherein each of the numeric and non-numeric features is associated with a weight. This is disclosed by Singh [0043: for each of the categories of data, embodiments may be configured to assign a score to each piece a data and sum the score wherein the score is a measure of how far the user may be willing to travel; 0052: interest weighting factors [of an event] may comprise ordered pairs of interests coupled with their strengths; a strength may be a number between 1 and 10; 0097: determining interest weighting factors based at least in part on the user data and event data].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for those skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Wadhawan with the teachings from Singh with the motivation to generate event recommendations for user by determining interest weighting factors based at least in part on user data, calendar data, map data, and event data. Singh [0113].
Regarding Claims 2, 9 and 16, Wadhawan discloses, wherein the plurality of user features comprises a measure of user involvement associated with a past event. Wadhawan [0036: estimate the user's preferences for trainer style and trainer support based on trainer demographics and trainer support scores of classes previously completed by the user; 0042: computer system (or the native application) can access a list of difficulties of classes completed by the user prior to the exercise session].
Regarding Claims 3, 10 and 17, Wadhawan discloses, wherein the measure of user involvement with the past event comprises at least one of a purchase, a selection, or a rating. Wadhawan [0011: the computer system ranks classes by probability that the user will complete these classes based on historical class completion data of the user; 0036: fitness platform can store metadata of classes previously started, exited, completed, and skipped by the user; 0057: collects additional user data as the user selects and completes classes on the fitness platform over time].
Regarding Claims 4, 11 and 18, Wadhawan discloses, wherein the predicted favorite score is determined based on at least one of a plurality of machine learning models based on the measure of user involvement. Wadhawan [0030: computer system can implement clustering, regression, artificial intelligence, or machine learning techniques to identify a cohort (or cluster, group) of other users who previously completed at least one class on the fitness platform; 0036: implement regression techniques to derive a trajectory of difficulty levels of classes completed by the user; and estimate the user's preferences for trainer style and trainer support based on trainer demographics and trainer support scores of classes previously completed by the user].
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Wadhawan discloses, wherein the event features comprise at least one of a text feature and a non-text feature. Wadhawan [0012: user may review titles and textual descriptions of classes before selecting a first class; 0021: class includes an audio track containing guided oral instruction from a trainer narrating an exercise routine, music, and metadata describing characteristics of the exercise routine].
Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadhawan (US Publication 2020/0160961) in view of Singh (US Publication 2020/0334641) in further view of Polish (US Publication 2022/0014571).
A. In regards to Claims 5, 12 and 19, Wadhawan does not specifically disclose, wherein the measure of user involvement comprises a plurality of measures of user involvement and further comprising:
evenly and randomly distributing, at the client device, each of the plurality of measures of user involvement between the plurality of machine learning models; this is disclosed by Polish [0141: system includes learning algorithms that may be configured to incrementally supplement the user packet data by each individual user; 0335: quantity and quality of the data set collected is essential and serves in constructing an accurate model; data may be by a table or some other appropriate form of database, which is used for training decisioning criteria; data preparation step may be automatic requiring no human intervention; some instances, it may be best to randomize data, which eliminates the effects of the particular order in which data was collected and/or prepared; some instances, this process may also require training and splitting the data prepared into training and evaluation sets; each machine learning algorithm builds a mathematical model based on sample data];
receiving at the client device, additional measures of user involvement; Polish [0129: survey is generated based on the meeting record that is sent out to each of the participants and a special survey is generated for the host participant or meeting leader; 0140: post-meeting module executes algorithms to collect and analyze the surveys];
and evaluating, at the client device, a performance of each of the plurality of machine learning models based on the additional measures of user involvement. This is disclosed by Polish [0335: each machine learning algorithm builds a mathematical model based on sample data; models can be used to categorize participants based on how the data distributes when applied to the models; next process is training the model, which is used to determine which factors may be more important than others; next process involves evaluating the model, which includes choosing a measure of success and deciding on an evaluation protocol].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for those skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Wadhawan with the teachings from Polish with the motivation to provide artificial intelligence models that keep track of participant and meeting or event metrics and anticipate next action and make recommendations that facilitate completion of the next actions. Polish [0103].
B. In regards to Claims 6, 13 and 20, Wadhawan does not specifically disclose, further comprising selecting, at the client device, an optimal machine learning model of the plurality of machine learning models based on the evaluation of the performance of each of the plurality of machine learning models. This is disclosed by Polish [0335: next process is parameter tuning, which involves developing a model to represent the best effort]. The motivation being the same as that set forth in claim 5.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant's filed arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
A. Applicant argues regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the amended independent claims are patent eligible because they recite a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Technological improvements are based on the claims and derived from the technical evidence provided by Applicant’s specification. See Enfish, DDR and Mcro. Associating event features with a weight, regardless if they are numeric or non-numeric features, does not provide a solution to a technological problem. There is no technical support/technical evidence in Applicant's Specification that would be apparent to one skilled in the art that the instant claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself, causes an improvement to another technology/technical field, or solves a technological problem.
As such, the claims as a whole, in view of Alice, do not connote an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
B. Applicant’s arguments in regards to claims 1, 8 and 15 are moot in light of the new grounds of rejections. Applicant’s other arguments regarding the dependent claims are rejected accordingly to independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571- 270-7537. 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.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).