DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 9/21/2022 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/24/2026 has been entered.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 9/15/2026.
Claims 1, 8, 15 are amended
Overall, Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 and Step 2A of the two-step eligibility analysis, independent Claim 1, Claim 8 and Claim 15 and the therefrom dependent claims are directed respectively to a computer implemented method, to a system and to computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium.
Thus, on its face, each such independent claim and the therefrom dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A system, comprising: one or more computing devices; one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing a program of instructions
[B] identifying, by one or more computing devices, a user to be allowed within a specific time window to use a user computing device to access a target video content,
[C] wherein the user is among first users selected from a plurality of users to access the target video content in the specific time window,
[D] wherein the plurality of users includes second users not selected to access the target video content in the specific time window;
in response to determining, by the one or more computing devices, that the user selects a first video content in a plurality of video contents, performing:
[E] retrieving, by the one or more computing devices, traversal costs among different video content categories organized as nodes in a category taxonomy graph,
[F] wherein the traversal costs are computed by configuring a first arc weight to traversal in a first direction between two nodes and a second, different arc weight to traversal in a second, opposite, direction between the two nodes, and
[G] normalizing each traversal cost by dividing the traversal cost by a traversal cost of a longest path between two nodes in the category taxonomy graph,
[H] wherein the plurality of video contents are partitioned into the different video content categories,
[I] wherein the first video content belongs to a first video content category of the different video content categories;
[J] retrieving, by the one or more computing devices, a category-based selection likelihood associated with the first video content category in relation to the target video content, the category-based selection likelihood representing historical yield rate views of the target video content completed from the first video content category;
in response to determining that the user is among the first users allowed to access the target video content within the specific time window,
[K] selecting, by the one or more computing devices, a set of sequentially ordered video contents including the target video content following the first video content, wherein the set of sequentially ordered video contents is selected from the plurality of video contents based at least in part on the traversal costs and the category-based selection likelihood;
[L] creating, by the one or more computing devices, a playlist comprising an access pointer to a content delivery network for the user computing device to access each video content in the set of sequentially ordered video contents,
[M] wherein each video content in the set of sequentially ordered video contents is selected from among a plurality of candidate video contents stored at the content delivery network based on the traversal costs and the category-based selection likelihood,
[N] wherein the access pointer for each video content in the set of sequentially ordered video contents points to a location of the video content at the content delivery network;
[O] wherein the playlist specifies the target video content, which is allowed to be accessed by the user within the specific time window, to be placed at a specific position in video streaming of the set of sequential ordered video contents,
[P] wherein the specific position in the video streaming for the target video content is determined based at least in part on the traversal costs and the category-based selection likelihood;
[Q] sending to the user computing device, by the one or more computing devices, the playlist for accessing and
[R] displaying at least one video content in the set of sequentially ordered video contents on the user computing device.
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) recites: retrieving traversal costs normalizing traversal costs and retrieving category-based selection likelihood data as well ([E], [G], [J]); selecting video contents and creating a playlist ([K], [L]); and sending the playlist and displaying video content ([Q], [R]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: a process aimed at providing content (e.g. advertising), based on predetermined conditions.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers agreements in the form of advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
In addition, or alternatively, this is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step “retrieving traversal costs among different video content categories organized as nodes in a category taxonomy graph”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally recovering cost information, without physical aid. Further, the step “normalizing each traversal cost”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally normalizing the costs, without physical aid. Further, the step “retrieving a category-based selection likelihood”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally recovering selection data, without physical aid. Further, the step “selecting a set of sequentially ordered video contents”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally selecting video contents, without physical aid. Further, the step “creating a playlist comprising an access pointer to a content delivery network”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally creating a playlist, without physical aid. Further, the step “sending to the user computing device the playlist for accessing”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally sending the playlist, without physical aid. Further, the step “displaying at least one video content in the set of sequentially ordered video contents on the user computing device.”, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally displaying video content, without physical aid. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of a physical aid would not negate the mental nature of this limitation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) iii B)
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “by the one or more computing devices” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements “wherein the user is among first users selected from a plurality of users to access the target video content in the specific time window”; “wherein the plurality of users includes second users not selected to access the target video content in the specific time window;”; “wherein the traversal costs are computed by configuring a first arc weight to traversal in a first direction between two nodes and a second, different arc weight to traversal in a second, opposite, direction between the two nodes”; “wherein the plurality of video contents are partitioned into the different video content categories,” “wherein the first video content belongs to a first video content category of the different video content categories;”; “wherein each video content in the set of sequentially ordered video contents is selected from among a plurality of candidate video contents stored at the content delivery network based on the traversal costs and the category-based selection likelihood”; “wherein the access pointer for each video content in the set of sequentially ordered video contents points to a location of the video content at the content delivery network;”; “wherein the playlist specifies the target video content, which is allowed to be accessed by the user within the specific time window, to be placed at a specific position in video streaming of the set of sequential ordered video contents,” “wherein the specific position in the video streaming for the target video content is determined based at least in part on the traversal costs and the category-based selection likelihood”, as applied to the user, the plurality of users, the traversal costs, the first video content, each video content, the access pointer, the playlist, the specific position in the video stream, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These additional elements of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea a process aimed at providing content (e.g. advertising), based on predetermined conditions, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: identifying a user ([B]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (a process aimed at providing content (e.g. advertising), based on predetermined conditions) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 1, (which is representative of independent claims 8, 15), evaluated individually, as well as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 8, 15) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). They also add insignificant extra-solution activity to the already identified judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 8, 15 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 5, which is representative of dependent claims 12, 18, recites: wherein the user computing device
presents the target video content within the specific time window after at least one non-target video content in a video content category specifically selected from among the different video content categories.
The elements in these dependent claims are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (a process aimed at providing content (e.g. advertising), based on predetermined conditions) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)). When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claims continue to recite the identified abstract idea.
The dependent claims elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. It is readily clear that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claims further elaborate on the previously identified abstract idea (a process aimed at providing content (e.g. advertising), based on predetermined conditions).
Therefore, dependent claim 5 (which is representative of dependent claims 12, 18) is deemed ineligible. As a result, it is concluded that the dependent claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, which are representative of dependent claims 9-11, 13-14 and 16-17, 19-20, respectively, recite:
wherein the selection probability is computed based on historical user interaction data to indicate a probability of a user selecting the target video content for playback subsequent to playing back the first video content.
wherein the set of sequentially ordered video contents includes one or more video contents in a specific video content group that has a relatively high probability of playing back follow-on video contents in the plurality of video contents after the target video content is played back.
wherein the relatively high probability of the specific video content is identified based on historical user interaction data.
wherein the target electronic asset is placed at a specific position in the set of sequentially ordered video contents.
wherein the selection probability is updated based on further user interaction data collected from a plurality of user computing devices.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements (in this instance – selection probability, the set of video content, the probability of specific video contents, target electronic asset, selection probability) and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, which are representative of dependent claims 9-11, 13-14 and 16-17, 19-20 are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Written Description (New Matter)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of the relevant portion of 35 U.S.C. §132(a):
No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for failing to comply with the written description requirement. MPEP 2163.06 stipulates – If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) – written description requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 8, 15 have been amended by Applicant to include the limitation “wherein the set of sequentially ordered video contents is selected from the plurality of video contents based at least in part on … and the category-based selection likelihood.” The limitation has no support in the specification, drawings or initial set of claims.
As per claims 1, 8, 15 Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “wherein the set of sequentially ordered video contents is selected from the plurality of video contents based at least in part on … and the category-based selection likelihood” in the application as filed, the drawings or the initial set of claims. In fact, paragraph [0020] of the specification, as filed, traches way from the newly introduced claim element (“Instead of the category-based approach, a precision approach may be used, …”).
The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2019/0303995), in view of Garg (US 2015/0350259), in further view of Jin et al (US 2014/0331252).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 15 – Li discloses: A computer-implemented method, comprising:
in response to determining, by the one or more computing devices, that the user selects a first video content in a plurality of video contents, performing:
wherein the user is among first users selected from a plurality of users to access the target video content in the specific time window, {see at least [0022]-[0023] training users (based on the BRI requirement (MPEP 2111), reads on users selected to access video content)
wherein the plurality of users includes second users not selected to access the target video content in the specific time window; {see at least [0027] target users (based on BRI requirement (MPEP 2111), reads on ‘second users’ that have not been used as training users; the training takes place at a specific time}
wherein the plurality of video contents are partitioned into the different video content categories, wherein the first video content belongs to a first video content category of the different video content categories; {see at least [0038] digital content, digital image, digital video … or other type of digital content (reads on different types of video content – (reads on different types of video content) Based on Lis’ disclosure and the broadest reasonable interpretation requirement, “other type of digital content” is construed as including “different types of video categories” as well)}
retrieving, by the one or more computing devices, a category-based selection likelihood associated with the first video content category in relation to the target video content, the category-based selection likelihood representing a historical yield rate to the target video content completed from the first video content; {see at least [0025]-[0026] item-level selection probability, fig4, rc408, [0074]-[0076] selection probabilities; fig5, rc508, [0090]-[0092] selection probabilities}
in response to determining that the user is among the first users allowed to access the target video content within the specific time window, {Li fails to explicitly disclose the conditional claim limitation; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the video selection will be selected as a result of fulfilling the condition – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
in response to determining that the user is among the first users allowed to access the target video content within the specific time window, {Li fails to explicitly disclose the conditional claim limitation; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that the video selection will be selected as a result of fulfilling the condition – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
selecting, by the one or more computing devices, a set of sequentially ordered video contents including the target video content following the first video content, {see at least fig5, rc506a-c, [0090]-[0092] item lists ranked on appearance rate (reads on selection probability); [0038]-[0039] item (e.g. digital video) ordered list when displayed (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation requirement (MPEP 2111), reads on target video content on continuously updated list, which points to specific temporal positions)}
wherein the set of sequentially ordered video contents is selected from the plurality of video contents based at least in part on … and the category-based selection likelihood; {see at least [0042]-[0043] policy based … likelihood of selection … based on target policy; fig5, [0090]-[0092] target policy elements}
creating, by the one or more computing devices, a playlist comprising an access pointer to the content delivery network for the user computing device to access each video content in the set of sequentially ordered video contents; {see at least [0020] ranked list of digital items (reads on sequentially ordered); [0038] item list according to target policy … ordered presentation; Li fails to expressly disclose the temporally ordered play list; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that in a training environment, the playlist is temporally ordered – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
wherein the playlist specifies the target video content to be placed at the specific position in video streaming of the set of sequential ordered video contents, {see at least [0029] the policy modeling system trains an item-position importance sampling model that generates a performance value based on both a position of the digital content item and content of the digital content item; Li fails to expressly disclose the temporally ordered play list; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that in a training environment, the playlist is temporally ordered – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
wherein the specific position in the video streaming for the target video content, which is allowed to be accessed by the user within the specific time window, is determined based at least in part on the randomized number,
sending to the user computing device, by the one or more computing devices, the playlist for accessing and displaying at least one video content in the set of sequentially ordered video contents on the user computing device. {see at least [0038] collection of digital content items to client device; Li fails to expressly disclose the temporally ordered play list; however, it is reasonable to assume that one of ordinary skills in the art will realize that in a training environment, the playlist is temporally ordered – see MPEP 2123 and MPEP 2144.01}
Li does not disclose, however, Garg discloses:
retrieving, by the one or more computing devices, traversal costs among different video content categories, organized as nodes in a category taxonomy graph, {see at least fig2, rc202A, rc202B, rc202C, rc202D, rc202E, rc202F, [0043]-[0048] traversal cost for edges between any two nodes; nodes can be videos, movies (reads on video content categories)}
wherein the traversal costs are computed by configuring a first arc weight to traversal in a first direction between two nodes and a second, different arc weight to traversal in a second, opposite, direction between the two nodes, and normalizing each traversal cost by dividing the traversal cost by a traversal cost of a longest path between two nodes in the category taxonomy graph {This claim element is given no patentable weight because it is not directed to the subject of the claim, it is outside the scope of the claim. Although the claim element is disclosed by the specification at [0033]-[0036], the specification does not disclose that the claimed method would function only if the procedure described at [0033]-[0036] is applied}
wherein each video content in the set of sequentially ordered video contents is selected from among a plurality of candidate video contents stored at the content delivery network based on the traversal costs and the category-based selection likelihood, wherein the access pointer for each video content in the set of sequentially ordered video contents points to a location of the video content at the content delivery network; {see at least fig1, rc146, [0033] content store (reads on stored video content); [0033] video identifier (reads on pointer for each video); accessing content (reads on video content location)}
… the traversal costs … {see at least fig2, rc202A, rc202B, rc202C, rc202D, rc202E, rc202F, [0043]-[0048] traversal cost for edges between any two nodes; nodes can be videos, movies (reads on traversal costs)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Li to include the elements of Garg. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to create a better ranking by including traversal costs as well. In the instant situation, traversal costs are included as one of the target policy factors, either instead of an already considered factor, or along the one factor already included. In the instant case, Li evidently discloses generating and providing a ranked video play list. Garg is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of traversal costs in the same or similar context. Since both generating and providing a video play list, as well as generating and providing a video play list are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Li, as well as Garg would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Li / Garg.
Li, Garg does to disclose, however, Jin discloses:
identifying, by one or more computing devices, a user to be allowed within a specific time window to use a user computing device to access a target video content; {see at least fig5, rc520, [0052] Time window 530 may identify a period of time during which the customer may access video content. Time window 530 may have a beginning time and an ending time}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Li, Garg to include the elements of Jin. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to control users’ access to the video. In the instant case, Li, Garg evidently discloses generating and providing a ranked video play list. Jin is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of time window for accessing a video in the same or similar context. Since both generating and providing a ranked video play list, as well as time window for accessing a video are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Li, Garg, as well as Jin would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it is concluded that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Li, Garg / Jin.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, 16 – Li, Garg, Jin discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. Li further discloses:
wherein the selection probability is computed based on historical user interaction data to indicate a probability of a user selecting the target video content for playback subsequent to playing back the first video content. {see at least [0020] target policy in light of historical user interactions}
Regarding Claims 3, 10, 17 – Li, Garg, Jin discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. Li further discloses:
wherein the set of sequentially ordered video contents includes one or more video contents in a specific video content group that has a relatively high probability of playing back follow-on video contents in the plurality of video contents after the target video content is played back. {see at least [0020] ranked list of digital items (reads on sequentially ordered; [0038] item list according to target policy … ordered presentation}
Regarding Claims 4, 11 – Li, Garg, Jin discloses the limitations of Claims 3, 10. Li further discloses:
wherein the relatively high probability of the specific video content is identified based on historical user interaction data. {see at least [0020] evaluation of policy based on historical user interactions}
Regarding Claims 5, 12, 18 – Li, Garg, Jin discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. Li further discloses:
wherein the user computing device presents the target video content within the specific time window after at least one non-target video content in a video content category specifically selected from among the different video content categories. {see at least [0061] time of the day / day part (reds on specific time window; fig9, rc910, [0148] digital content presented in accordance with training (reads on non-target video content; [0038] item list according to target policy (reads on specifically selected)}
Regarding Claims 6, 13, 19 – Li, Garg, Jin discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. Li further discloses:
wherein the target electronic asset is placed at a specific position in the set of sequentially ordered video contents. {see at least [0042] a position and a digital content item will be selected; fig7, rc704, [0132] item-position based model}
Regarding Claims 7, 14, 20 – Li, Garg, Jin discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. Li further discloses:
wherein the selection probability is updated based on further user interaction data collected from a plurality of user computing devices. {see at least fig9, rc940, [0152] adjusted user interaction score (reds on updated selection probability}
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20060173838 A1 2006-08-03 46 Garg; Shishir et al. Content navigation service - A system, method, and computer program product for presenting items within a list of items based on an individual user profile, a social network of friends of the user or a mood of the user. The system generates the individual profile of the user, determines passive friends of the user from the social network of the user and also determines the mood of the user. The user has a choice to receive an ordered list of items based on the individual user profile, the social network or the mood of the user.
US 20090055006 A1 2009-02-26 19 ASANO; Yasuharu Information Processing Apparatus, Information Processing Method, and Computer Program - An information processing apparatus performing a process for generating a playlist defining a reproduction sequence of contents includes: a model information holding part storing therein probability models corresponding to a time series pattern of content feature volumes being feature information about contents; a content feature extracting part acquiring a content feature volume corresponding to each of contents to be reproduced; a playlist generating part comparing a time series pattern of the content feature volumes extracted in the content feature extracting part corresponding to each of permutation patterns of a reproduction sequence of contents to be reproduced with a probability model held in the model information holding part, and generating a playlist in which a reproduction sequence of contents is set in accordance with a time series pattern of content feature volumes most analogous to the probability model; and a content reproducing part reproducing contents in accordance with the generated playlist.
US 20140344103 A1 2014-11-20 15 ZHU; QIUSHA et al. SYSTEM AND METHODFORPERSONALIZED VIDEO RECOMMENDATION BASED ON USER INTERESTS MODELING - A method is provided for personalized video recommendation based on user interests modeling. The method includes detecting a viewing activity of at least one user of a content-presentation device capable of presenting multiple programs in one or more channels, and representing user interests of the at least one user by using a topic model. The method also includes discovering the user interests from user viewing histories, and generating a personalized video list of personalized video contents. Further, the method includes recommending the personalized video contents to the at least one user; and delivering the recommended personalized video to the at least one user such that the personalized video contents are presented on the content-presentation device.
US 20130080968 A1 2013-03-28 15 Hanson; Matthew J. et al. USER INTERFACE WITH MEDIA CONTENT PREDICTION - Some implementations include displaying media content items on a home screen of a computing device. A display order for a list of media content items may be determined based, at least in part, on a predicted likelihood that an individual one of the plurality of media content items will be selected. A home screen of a user interface may be displayed, according to the determined display order, with a list of a plurality of media content items that are available to the computing device.
US 20150039608 A1 2015-02-05 22 Basilico; Justin D. MEDIA CONTENT RANKINGS FOR DISCOVERY OF NOVEL CONTENT - A content provider system ranks media content items with respect to a particular user based on selection scores determined for each of the media content items. The selection scores may be determined using a particular model that calculates a predicted selection score based on feature values associated with the content item with respect to the particular user. The feature values may indicate properties of the media content item, the particular user, or the particular user's relationship with the content item, including information about the novelty of the media content item with respect to the user. The particular model may be trained with sample user consumption data points that represent various combinations of media content items and users. The data point information evaluated during the training of the particular model may cause the model to assign higher selection scores to content items that are novel in particular ways.
US 20180101611 A1 2018-04-12 16 McDevitt; John et al. SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR STREAMING INDIVIDUALIZED MEDIA CONTENT - A system and method that provides a rule based randomized media content management system. The system includes a database that stores media content that is associated with category metadata that identifies content of the media content with corresponding categories. Moreover, a programming rules engine generates a list of approved media content based on business rules and a predictive rules engine generates media content selection characteristics based on media display device data and media consumption data associated with the viewer. Furthermore, a media content playlist engine is provided that generates a media content playlist by applying the generated media content selection characteristics to the list of approved media content to select media content, such that the resource consumption by the media display device is minimized by selecting media content that is targeted to the viewer of the media display device according to one or more business rules.
US 20170228385 A1 2017-08-10 22 Zheng; Yin et al. Generation of Video Recommendations Using Connection Networks - A method receives ratings for videos from a first user that is using a video delivery service. A first model includes connection networks where each connection network corresponds to a rating. The method inputs each rating into a connection network in an order. Also, parameters for the ratings and ratings other than the rating received from the first user are modeled in a respective connection network. Values for the set of parameters are trained such that the plurality of connection networks predict conditional probabilities that the first user would provide the rating corresponding to the each connection network in the order. The conditional probabilities are based on the first user providing ratings that are previously located in the order. The parameters are then used to generate a list of videos to recommend to the first user using the first model.
US 10803089 B1 2020-10-13 23 Seibert; Lucas Darryl et al. Grid based pathfinding - Technologies are disclosed herein for providing a pathfinding service for distributed processing of path data for a grid. The pathfinding service is configured to initiate computing instances to process the path data, and to determine if an acceptable path exists through the grid. Upon determination of the acceptable path, the pathfinding service may terminate any remaining computing instances.
US 7697557 B2 2010-04-13 19 Segel; Jonathan Predictive caching content distribution network - In various exemplary embodiments, a method for the distribution of content within a network of constrained capacity uses distributed content storage nodes functioning to achieve optimal service quality and maximum service session capacity. The method, which functions in unicast, broadcast, switched broadcast, and multicast mode networks, uses predictions of the utility of particular content items to download or record the highest utility items to distributed content stores during periods and in modes that will not increase demand peaks. These predictions of utility may be based on, for example, the number of potential users, the likelihood of their use, and the value to the service provider. The method uses signaling between network nodes to identify the best source for particular content items based on which nodes hold that content and the nature of network constraints.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “This ties the claimed method to the specific technical architecture of networked content delivery, not to an abstract targeting scheme divorced from any particular technological environment.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Tying the method to a specific architecture is not an eligibility criterion (see MPEP 2106.04-07)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The directional, normalized traversal-cost computation is a specific manner of building and querying the category taxonomy graph that differs from a conventional, symmetric, unweighted graph traversal - directly analogous to the data-structure-level improvement found eligible in case law. The claim does not merely recite the result of ranking categories; it recites how the underlying graph traversal cost is computed and normalized.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Conditionally providing content is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional elements,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Second, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “In addition, the claim ties selection and playlist creation to retrieval of candidate video content specifically stored at a content delivery network, with access pointers resolving to CDN locations. This integrates the claimed process into the technical operation of a distributed content-delivery system - determining which network-hosted resources are retrieved and transmitted to a user device - rather than merely using a generic computer as a tool to execute an otherwise abstract targeting scheme.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The Claims Recite Significantly More Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea (Step 2B)”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant office action concludes at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims independent 8, 15) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). They also add insignificant extra-solution activity to the already identified judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 8, 15 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
Applicant submits “Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for allegedly failing to comply with the written description requirement. Present Claims 1-20 are free of the noted issue. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the§ 112(a) rejection to independent Claims 1, 8 and 15, and all claims depending respectively therefrom, and all claims depending respectively therefrom.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The emended claims 1, 8, 15 recite:
“retrieving, by the one or more computing devices, a category-based selection likelihood associated with the first video content category in relation to the target video content, the category-based selection likelihood representing …”
“wherein the set of sequentially ordered video contents is selected from the plurality of video contents based at least in part on the traversal costs and the category-based selection likelihood;”
“…and the category-based selection likelihood, …”
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant’s remarks are not understandable. Applicant quotes the entire amended independent claim 1, with the remark “Li, Garg and Jin individually and collectively at least fail to disclose the features …”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
In order to receive specific replies, applicant is requested herewith to provide specific remarks.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
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 mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes can be reached at 571.272.6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3697
