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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 non-final Office Action on the Merits in response to Applicant’s submission.
a. 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) 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.
However, Claim 1, (which is repeated in Claims 8, 15) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites: applying a stochastic method to generate a randomized data value used as part of a composite score for ranking category transitions in a category taxonomy graph, the composite score being used by the one or more computing devices to control traversal of the category taxonomy graph and to ensure that new connections between categories are explored; in response to determining that the user is among the first users allowed to access the target video content within the specific time window selecting, by the one or more computing devices, a set of sequentially ordered video contents; creating, by the one or more computing devices, a playlist; sending to the user computing device, by the one or more computing devices, the playlist.
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the drafted process is comparable to an advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships process, i.e. a process aimed at providing content (that includes advertising), based on predetermined conditions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations of agreements in form of advertising, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions (e.g. agreements in form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships)” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, (A) remaining elements of the independent claims are directed to: identifying, by one or more computing devices, a user; 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; retrieving, by the one or more computing devices, traversal costs among different video content categories; retrieving, by the one or more computing devices, a selection probability associated with the first video content category.
When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent receipt, transmission and general computation claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components performing computer functions (adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
(B) Additional remaining claim elements are: the plurality of video contents; the first video content; the video selection probability; the set of sequentially ordered video contents; the play list; the timing for presenting the updated list; the specific position in the video stream, the user, the plurality of users. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, they do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
(C) Finally, recited computing elements, i.e. computing devices; memory are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing elements performing generic computer functions, like obtaining data, interpreting the obtained data and providing results, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, these additional claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, 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). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
(A) Step 2B of the eligibility analysis for the independent claims concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, remaining elements of the independent claims are directed to: identifying, by one or more computing devices, a user; 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; retrieving, by the one or more computing devices, traversal costs among different video content categories; retrieving, by the one or more computing devices, a selection probability associated with the first video content category.
When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent receipt, transmission and general computation claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components performing computer functions (adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
(B) Furthermore, additional remaining elements of the independent claims contain descriptive limitations explaining the nature, structure and/or content of: the plurality of video contents; the first video content; the video selection probability; the set of sequentially ordered video contents; the play list; the timing for presenting the updated list; the specific position in the video stream, the user, the plurality of users. However, these claim elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claimed invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
(C) Finally, the recited computing elements of the independent claims are: computing devices; memory. When considered individually, these additional claim elements serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. They do not constitute “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field”. (MPEP 2106.05(a)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of any of these areas.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to significantly more, to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination.
Dependent Claims 2-7 (which are repeated in Claims 8-14; 16-20 respectively) are not directed to any abstract ideas and are not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims provide further descriptive limitations of elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of: the selection probability; set of sequentially order video contents; the relatively high probability of the specific video content; the user computing device; the target electronic asset. However, these elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Specifically, the computing system encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules, as disclosed in the application specification in fig6 and [0078]-[0089], including among others: main memory; rom, ; storage device; communication interface; processor; bus; display; input device; cursor control; server; network link.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
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. ss
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 likelihood associated with the first video content category in relation to the target video content, the category-based selection likelihood representing a follow-on rate from the first video content category to the target video content; {see at least [0025]-[0026] item-level selection probability, fig4, rc408, [0074]-[0076] selection probabilities; fig5, rc508, [0090]-[0092] selection probabilities}
applying a stochastic method to generate a randomized data value used as part of a composite score for ranking category transitions in a category taxonomy graph, the composite score being used by the one or more computing devices to control traversal of the category taxonomy graph and to ensure that new connections between categories are explored {Li does not explicitly disclose “applying a stochastic method”. However, the difference between the instant application and the prior art is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and is not functionally involved in the recited steps. The steps of the claim would be performed the same regardless of the descriptive material since none of the steps explicitly interact therewith. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Thus, this descriptive material will not further limit the scope of the claim and does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at filing time to select a statistic method, out of a multitude of methods to produce a certain value, be it a randomized number, because such method does not functionally relate to the steps in the claimed process and because the utilized method to generate a number does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention. In addition, the claim element “to generate a randomized number” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution. The claim element “to generate a randomized data value used as part of a composite score for ranking category transitions in a category taxonomy graph for ranking category transitions in a category taxonomy graph, the composite score controlling exploration of underrepresented category transitions to prevent convergence on historical transition paths” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution. The claim element “the composite score being used by the one or more computing devices to control traversal of the category taxonomy graph and to ensure that new connections between categories are explored” consists entirely of language disclosing at most a reason to have performed earlier method steps (intended use or field of use), but does not affect the functions in a manipulative sense (see MPEP 2103 I C) and imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein), so it is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
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 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, {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)}
… 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 “The claims are therefore not directed to a fundamental economic practice or human activity, but to a particular algorithmic approach implemented by a computer system.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
It is not clear what a “particular algorithmic approach” signifies. Generally, all tasks processed by a computer are based on algorithmic approaches. Applicant is herewith requested to detail the “particular algorithmic approach” employed in the instant application.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The Office Action's characterization reduces the claims to merely "providing content" or "advertising." However, such a characterization fails to account for the recited stochastic scoring mechanism, graph-based ranking, and exploration control. Eligibility must be determined based on the claim as a whole, not by isolating selected aspects of the claim.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, the eligibility analysis in the instant office Action has determined, based on the claim language (“in response to determining that the user is among the first users allowed to access the target video content within the specific time window selecting, by the one or more computing devices, a set of sequentially ordered video contents; creating, by the one or more computing devices, a playlist; sending to the user computing device, by the one or more computing devices, the playlist.”) and in light of the specification (“dual optimization of targeted digital assets”), the claims are unambiguously directed to a process aimed at providing content (that includes advertising), based on predetermined conditions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations of agreements in form of advertising, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions (e.g. agreements in form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Second, based on the examination guidelines disclosed in MPEP 2106.04-07, all claim elements have been considered both individually and as a whole, as a combination (see the eligibility rejection in the instant office action).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The claims recite a specific improvement to the functioning of computer-based recommendation systems, namely, a technique for ensuring exploration of new category transitions.”
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.” Dual optimization of targeted digital assets 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 “This directly addresses a technical problem in recommendation systems-the tendency of systems to converge on historical transition paths (i.e., overfitting to prior behavior)-and provides a technical solution by introducing controlled stochastic exploration into the ranking process. … This constitutes an improvement to computer functionality and to the technical field of recommendation systems.”
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 Office Action asserts that the claims do not improve computer functionality and merely use generic computing components. However, this conclusion does not address the claimed stochastic composite scoring and graph-based ranking mechanism, which defines how the computer processes data and produces results. The claims do not merely use a computer as a tool, but instead improve the manner in which the computer performs recommendation and ranking operations.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The claims of the instant application are directed to “a process aimed at providing content (that includes advertising), based on predetermined conditions”. “[T]he claimed stochastic composite scoring and graph-based ranking mechanism” is recited as a tool to perform the gist of the instant application.
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.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis for the independent claims concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. 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.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 8, 15 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “This is not a generic or conventional data processing operation. Rather, it is a particular algorithmic technique that alters system behavior and produces improved outcomes in recommendation systems.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, the eligibility analysis in the instant office Action does not allege that this is a “generic or conventional data processing operation.”
Second, applicant is requested to provide a specific example of altering system behavior and producing improved outcomes in recommendation systems.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The stochastic component is not generic mathematics or an intended use; it is functionally integrated into the ranking process and directly affects how the system selects and orders content.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The claims of the instant application are directed to “a process aimed at providing content (that includes advertising), based on predetermined conditions”. “[T]he claimed stochastic composite scoring and graph-based ranking mechanism” is recited as a tool to perform the gist of the instant application.
Applicant submits “The Office Action's Analysis Improperly Dissects the Claims. … By disregarding these interrelationships, the Office Action fails to properly evaluate the claims under § 101.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
First, an examiner can describe an abstract idea at different levels of generality without affecting the patent-eligibility analysis. Cf Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240--41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction .... The Board's slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability analysis."). That is the case here. Regardless of the level of generality used to describe the abstract idea recited in claim 1, the result is the same – claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Cf Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("Although not as broad as the district court's abstract idea of organizing data, it is nonetheless an abstract concept.").
Second, The interrelationship of the additional elements has been evaluated individually and as a whole, as a combination in Step 2A2 of the eligibility analysis of the instant office action.
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.
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant makes no specific remarks about the 103 rejection in the final office action from 2/25/2026
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.
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
Prosecution Insights