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 .
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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 have been added, are pending, and are rejected.
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/10/2026 regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection. The Examiner notes that while the amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection, the subject matter of the claims that the Decision on Appeal noted as not being disclosed by the combination of prior art of Kimble, Bernard, and Sorg was not included in the new claims.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/10/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/10/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, 10-11 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims assign the different numeric values based on how playback is initiated, and the position-dependent valuation of video assets are based on different system-triggered playback states is a concrete machine behavior and not a mathematical formula or mental process. The selecting and ordering step is also argued as a continuous-play feature that “seamlessly builds a sequential set of videos that may be consumed without interruption” and recite more than “recommending content” as it recites configuring and operating a playlist mechanism such that playback of successive assets is automatically triggered and governed by position-specific numeric values computed from measured consumption behavior. On pages 12-13, the Applicant argues that any alleged abstract idea would be integrated into a practical application in the form of specific continuous-play video control mechanism that collects real-time interaction data across multiple computing devices while content is actually being played back, computes distinct numeric values for the same content based on machine-triggered playback states and playlist position, uses those values to select and order video elements into a playlist, configures the playlist for automatic playback of successive videos, and dynamically revises the playlist in response to detected termination events.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The assigning of numeric values to the content items based on how the playback is initiated is merely scoring user interaction with content items, which is a mental process and a process of scoring content to present to a user (advertise), and is a marketing activity under certain methods of organizing human activity. The position-dependent valuation does not represent any technical functionality, but merely assigns a value to a position of an item within a list. How a computing device plays and video or other media item at any technical level is unchanged, and uninvolved. Selecting and ordering content using values computed from measured consumption behavior also does not represent any technical ability of any computing device, but merely represents observing consumer behavior to score items that are likely of interest, and generating a list of items ordered by what is most likely to be of interest to the user tastes, which is an abstract idea. The automatic playing of successive videos is also recited with a very high level of generality, merely reciting that the next video on the list is played automatically. There is no change to the technical ability of the computer to play videos, but the claims only recite the abstract process of ordering a playlist of items according to user behavior, and automating the process on a computing device. As such, the continuous-play feature does not represent a technical undertaking, and the claims are directed to the abstract process of ordering a list of items based on consumer behavior. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, but merely provide a general link to a computing environment.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 21-27 are directed to a method, which is a process. Claims 28-34 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is an article of manufacture. Claims 35-40 are directed to a system, which is an apparatus. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 35 as representative, claim 35 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of creating playlists for users based on their interactions:
collecting user interaction data between a plurality of users and the plurality of user computing devices while a plurality of video content is being played back by the plurality of user computing devices to the plurality of users;
generating based on the collected user interaction data, a plurality of individual numeric values estimated for the plurality of video contents, wherein generating the plurality of individual numeric values comprises computing a first numeric value when playback is initiated by a user action and a second numeric value when playback is initiated automatically upon completing of a preceding video content;
selecting and ordering a set of specific video contents from the plurality of video contents using the plurality of individual numeric values for the plurality of video contents;
creating and sending to a particular user, a playlist comprised of an access pointer for each video content in the set of specific video contents, wherein each individual numeric value of a video content in the playlist is computed as a function of a position of the video element within the playlist; wherein the playlist is configured for automatic playback of a next video content without requiring further user input upon completion of a prior video content;
monitoring particular user interaction with the particular user to determine whether a playback of a particular video content in the set of specific video content is terminated,
sending to the particular user a revised playlist comprised of an access pointer for each video content in a revised set of specific video contents in response to determining, based on the particular user interaction, that the playback of the particular video is terminated.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for creating playlists for users based on their interactions. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to creating playlists for user based on their interaction data (see specification [0003] disclosing attempts of providers to predict how users will consume digital content and which digital content will be consumed by a particular user), which is a marketing activity.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 35 recites additional elements, such as:
one or more computing devices;
one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, storing one or more sequences of instructions;
a plurality of computing devices by one or more computing devices;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 35 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite one or more computing devices and non-transitory computer-readable data storage media, these additional elements are recited in the claims and disclosed within the specification with a very high level of generality. Specification paragraphs [0082-0085] and [0091] disclose the computing devices and computing system, and merely recite generic computing components, such as desktop computers, handheld devices, smartphones, etc. that comprise generic components, such as a general purpose microprocessor, busses, memory, etc. Paragraph [0092] discloses the non-transitory storage media as any storage media such as a floppy disk, hard disk, solid state drive, etc. As such, the computing components are generic devices that merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), representative claim 35 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to representative claim 35, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 35 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 35 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 35 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 35 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 21 (method): Claim 21 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 35 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claim 21 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 35.
Regarding Claim 28 (non-transitory computer-readable storage media): Claim 28 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 35 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claim 28 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 35.
Dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 35, such as by further defining the algorithm for creating playlists for users based on their interactions, and do not recite any further additional elements. Thus, each of claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 35. Further additional elements are also acknowledged; however, the additional elements of claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 35. Thus, dependent claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
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, 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 21, 23-26, 28, 30-33, 35, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kimble (US 20100251305 A1) in view of Bury (US 20180060900 A1), and in further view of Hummel (US 20180285937 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Kimble discloses a method comprising:
collecting, from a plurality of user computing devices by one or more computing devices, user interaction data between a plurality of users and the plurality of user computing devices while a plurality of video contents is being played back by the plurality of user computing devices to the plurality of users; (Kimble: [0159] – “The collecting entity 330 is adapted to gather data from each CPE 106 regarding user actions occurring thereon, via pathway A (which may comprise a physical or logical channel of the type well known in the networking arts). The collecting entity 330 may comprise e.g., a BSA server at a network hub (see FIG. 3a below), one or more VOD servers 105, or a separate headend entity. Alternatively, the CPE 106 may be adapted to collect data regarding user activity rather than a separate entity doing so”; Kimble: [0148] – “several user profiles may also relate to one CPE 106, or user. The user profiles are, in the illustrated embodiment, updated at every instance of a user action, although it will be recognized that other models may be used (such as where only certain classes of user actions, or those occurring during certain periods of time or dates, are recorded and used for update)”).
generating based on the collected user interaction data, by the one or more computing devices, a plurality of individual numeric values estimated for the plurality of video contents, (Kimble: [0155] – “data collected from user actions is sent to a user action database (UAD 260) where the user action data is used to calculate updated training data in the form of an updated training vector, as will be discussed in greater detail below. Then, at step 220, the updated training vector is sent back to the recommendation engine 250 from the UAD 260 or its proxy, and an updated user profile is generated”; Kimble: [0252] – “content is recommended to a user in the exemplary embodiment based on a comparison of the content record 400 of the content to the user's profile 510. Both the content record 400 and the user profile 510 are represented as vectors. To compare the vectors, in one embodiment, the dot product of the vectors is calculated, and if that product meets a certain minimum value, the content will be listed as "recommended" content”).
selecting and ordering, by the one or more computing devices, a set of specific video contents from the plurality of video contents using the plurality of individual numeric values for the plurality of video contents; (Kimble: [0254] – “the score for the particular piece of content is examined against a threshold score. If the score for the particular piece of content is greater than the threshold, the content record will be stored on a "hit" list. The score of the next content examined will be placed on the list above or below that preceding it depending on its value compared to the preceding entries. Thus, if the first content evaluated by the engine 250 scored a score of 19.1, as above, and the second content examined scored a score of 10.2, the second would be placed below the first in the priority order of the list. Once the hit list is filled (based on e.g., a predetermined number of allowed entries, filled runtime, or other such criteria), the content record having the lowest score will be dropped from the list. The threshold may be a static number (e.g., the top 20) or, alternatively, the there may be a minimum number for each content type or based on several content aspects 412, 504 (e.g., at least three of each comedy, romance and action). It is also noted that in one embodiment, content meeting and/or exceeding a high threshold will be placed (by title) into a list for display to a user even though the content is only available at some time in the future”).
creating and sending to a particular user computing device, by the one or more computing devices, a playlist, wherein the playlist is configured for automatic playback of a next video content without requiring further user input upon completion of a prior video content; (Kimble: [0233] – “The recommendations may be displayed in the form of a playlist, a continuous stream on a virtual channel, an EPG, etc., or may be stored for later use or distribution to a connected device, such as by providing a filer, SMS message, e-mail, WAP push, etc. to a mobile/laptop computer, remote PC, etc. Any action taken by the user with respect to the displayed recommendations will be reported as user action data”).
monitoring particular user interaction with the particular user computing device to determine whether a playback of a particular video content in the set of specific video content is terminated, (Kimble: [0208] – “A user action is any action (whether active or passive) taken by a user with regard to content. Typical active user actions include, but are not limited to: (i) setting a reminder timer; (ii) viewing broadcast content to completion; (iii) setting content to record; (iv) viewing recorded content to completion; (v) rejecting content offered by the recommendation engine 250; (vi) searching for content; (vii) aborting viewing by turning off; (viii) aborting viewing by navigating to other content; (ix) aborting viewing and subsequently resuming; (x) navigating to or away from content relative some amount of time; (xi) viewing content to completion, but failing to continue viewing related content (other episodes); (xii) setting language preferences; and (xiii) setting closed captioning; etc. User actions also include instances where the user fails to take any action (i.e., an opportunity for action was offered, but no action was taken, or a prescribed event or period of time has elapsed, with no input or change by the user)”; Kimble: [0233] – “Any action taken by the user with respect to the displayed recommendations will be reported as user action data”).
Kimble discloses reporting any action the user takes, including with respect to the displayed recommendations (Kimble: [0208]; [0233]; see also: [0154]; [0204]; [0220]; [0265]), such actions including terminating a VOD stream midway (Kimble: [0209]; see also: [0250]).
sending to the particular user computing device a revised playlist in a revised set of specific video contents in response to determining, based on the particular user interaction, that the playback of the particular video is terminated. Kimble discloses generating better playlists, recommendations, suggestions, etc. immediately after actions occur to more precisely match the user’s profile (Kimble: [0210]; see also: [0156]), the actions including terminating a VOD stream midway (Kimble: [0209]; see also: [0250]), and feeding the content to the user as a continuous stream (Kimble: [0112]; see also: [0233]).
Kimble does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
wherein generating the plurality of individual numeric values comprises computing a first numeric value when playback is initiated by a user action and a second numeric value when playback is initiated automatically upon completion of a preceding video content;
comprised of an access pointer for each video content in the set of specific video contents;
wherein each individual numeric value of a video content in the playlist is computed as a function of a position of the video content within the playlist;
Notably, however, Kimble does disclose
To that accord, Bury does teach wherein generating the plurality of individual numeric values comprises computing a first numeric value when playback is initiated by a user action and a second numeric value when playback is initiated automatically upon completion of a preceding video content; (Bury: [0085] – “A greater interaction (e.g. a click on the video space) is associated with a greater value of the ninth criterion. By contrast, a lesser interaction (e.g. an automatic startup of the video advertisement) is associated with a lesser value of the ninth criterion”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Kimble disclosing the system revising playlists retrieving content from various sources with the individual numeric values computing a first numeric value when playback is initiated by user action and a second numeric value when playback is initiated automatically as taught by Bury. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to take account determining attention of the user affecting other criteria (Bury: [0086]).
Kimble in view of Bury does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
To that accord, Hummel does teach a method comprising:
comprised of an access pointer for each video content in the set of specific video contents;
wherein each individual numeric value of a video content in the playlist is computed as a function of a position of the video content within the playlist;
Notably, however, Kimble does disclose content from various distinct sources, such as DVR, broadcasts, VOD systems, etc. (Kimble: [0112]).
To that accord, Hummel does teach a method comprising:
comprised of an access pointer for each video content. (Hummel: [0022] – “A resource 105 is identified by a resource address that is associated with the resource 105. Resources include HTML pages, word processing documents, and portable document format (PDF) documents, images, video, and feed sources, to name only a few. The resources can include content, such as words, phrases, images and sounds, that may include embedded information (such as meta-information in hyperlinks) and/or embedded instructions (such as scripts). Units of content that are presented in (or with) resources are referred to as content items, and an individual content item can be stored in a single file or set of files independent of the resource”).
wherein each individual numeric value of a video content in the playlist is computed as a function of a position of the video content within the playlist; (Hummel: [0069] – “the position factor for each presentation position is based on a performance of content items that were previously presented in the presentation positions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Kimble in view of Bury disclosing the system revising playlists retrieving content from various sources with the access pointer for each item and a weight based on the position of the item as taught by Hummel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to determine content items to present with a higher expected configuration efficiency (Hummel: [0003]).
Regarding Claim 23: Kimble in view of Bury and Hummel discloses the limitations of claim 21 above.
Kimble further discloses wherein the plurality of individual numeric values includes at least one individual metric value that is specifically estimated for a video content to be played back within a certain time period. (Kimble: [0284] – “a user may be access a future playlist. In other words, the user is able to view a playlist the recommendation engine 250 will generate at a particular date/time in the future. For example, a user can access the website at 12:00 pm on a given day and run a query to find out what programming the recommendation engine 250 will recommend at 8:30, 9:00, 9:30, 10:00, etc. that night. These future playlists will be generated and displayed to the user who may then create a modified playlist of the content from the future playlists he/she would like to view at those times, and have that modified playlist sent back to his CPE”; Kimble: [0254] – “the score for the particular piece of content is examined against a threshold score. If the score for the particular piece of content is greater than the threshold, the content record will be stored on a "hit" list. The score of the next content examined will be placed on the list above or below that preceding it depending on its value compared to the preceding entries”).
Regarding Claim 24: The combination of Kimble, Bury, and Hummel discloses the limitations of claim 21 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of individual values includes at least one individual numeric value that is estimated for a video content based at least in part on a previous presentation order assigned to the video content in a previously sent playlist. Notably, however, Kimble does disclose calculating a value for the content items by calculating a dot product of the vectors for the content record and the user profile (Kimble: [0252]).
To that accord, Hummel does teach wherein the plurality of individual values includes at least one individual numeric value that is estimated for a video content based at least in part on a previous presentation order assigned to the video content in a previously sent playlist. (Hummel: [0069] – “Position factors are accessed for presentation positions of two or more different content item configurations (304). In some implementations, the position factor for each presentation position is based on a performance of content items that were previously presented in the presentation positions”; Hummel: [0006] – “Methods can include the actions of determining, for each particular presentation position in a third content item configuration, a reserve price based on an expected value of other presentation positions in the third content item configuration and the position factor for the particular presentation position”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Kimble in view of Bury disclosing the calculating of a value for each content item with the previous presentation order assigned in a previous sent playlist as taught by Hummel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to generate the most amount of revenue or value (Hummel: [0016]).
Regarding Claim 25: Kimble in view of Bury and Hummel discloses the limitations of claim 21 above.
Kimble further discloses wherein each video content in the playlist is automatically played back in a sequential order by the user computing device. (Kimble: [0233] – “The recommendations may be displayed in the form of a playlist, a continuous stream on a virtual channel”; Kimble: [0254] – “the score for the particular piece of content is examined against a threshold score. If the score for the particular piece of content is greater than the threshold, the content record will be stored on a "hit" list. The score of the next content examined will be placed on the list above or below that preceding it depending on its value compared to the preceding entries”).
Regarding Claim 26: Kimble in view of Bury and Hummel discloses the limitations of claim 21 above.
Kimble further discloses wherein the playback of the particular video content is terminated by a user action. (Kimble: [0250] – “when a user takes certain actions which have a highly negative training impact on content. For example, stopping a recording midway, or navigating away after viewing content for a significant amount of time, both have highly "negative" connotations for content, and cause the existing training data to be decremented by negative values associated with those actions”).
Regarding Claim 28 and 35: Claims 28 and 35 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 21. Therefore, claim 28 and 35 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 21 above.
Regarding Claim 30 and 37: Claims 30 and 37 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 23. Therefore, claim 30 and 37 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 23 above.
Regarding Claim 31 and 38: Claims 31 and 38 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 24. Therefore, claim 31 and 38 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 24 above.
Regarding Claim 32 and 39: Claims 32 and 39 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 25. Therefore, claim 32 and 39 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 25 above.
Regarding Claim 33 and 40: Claims 33 and 40 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 26. Therefore, claim 33 and 40 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 26 above.
Claims 22, 29, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Kimble (US 20100251305 A1), Bury (US 20180060900 A1), and Hummel (US 20180285937 A1), in view of Deng (US 20180373802 A1).
Regarding Claim 22: The combination of Kimble, Bury, and Hummel discloses the limitations of claim 21 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein a video content is partitioned into multiple video content portions, each of the multiple video content portions having an individual numeric value in the plurality of individual numeric values. Notably, however, Kimble does disclose calculating a value for the content items by calculating a dot product of the vectors for the content record and the user profile (Kimble: [0252]).
To that accord, Deng does teach wherein a video content is partitioned into multiple video content portions, each of the multiple video content portions having an individual numeric value in the plurality of individual numeric values. (Deng: [0028] – “rendering system 135 is capable of dividing content items into a plurality of sections, determining a score for each of the plurality of sections for each of the content items, and presenting content item(s) by applying a visualization technique to one or more of the sections of the content items based upon the score of the respective sections”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Kimble, Bury, and Hummel disclosing calculating a value for each content record with the partitioning of video content and providing a value for each portion as taught by Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to determine the sections of the content items that are of the greatest value to the user (Deng: [0003]).
Regarding Claim 29 and 36: Claims 29 and 36 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 22. Therefore, claim 29 and 36 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 22 above.
Claims 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Kimble (US 20100251305 A1), Bury (US 20180060900 A1), and Hummel (US 20180285937 A1), in view of Williams (US 20160353235 A1).
Regarding Claim 27: The combination of Kimble, Bury, and Hummel discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the set of specific video contents is selected and ordered with a graph-theoretic optimization algorithm. Notably, however, Kimble does disclose recommendation algorithms that are optimized for the content and user evaluation (Kimble: [0165]).
To that accord, Williams does teach wherein the set of specific video contents is selected and ordered with a graph-theoretic optimization algorithm. (Williams: [0104] – “The ordering backend 520 performs a variety of tasks relating to processing or routing bulk orders, including sorting, assigning, routing, queuing, distributing and scheduling, to name a few. The study, optimization and execution of these tasks requires the uses of techniques and results from well-developed, active areas of scientific research, such as operational research, combinatorial optimization, graph theory (in particular network theory), queuing theory, and transport theory”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Kimble, Bury, and Hummel disclosing the optimization of recommendation algorithms for content with the use of graph-theoretic optimization as taught by Williams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to use techniques from well-developed, active areas of scientific research (Williams: [0104]).
Regarding Claim 34: Claim 34 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 27. Therefore, claim 34 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 27 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 5/12/2026
Prosecution Insights