DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Amendments dated 07/29/2026 are accepted.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15, 17, and 19-20 are amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as discussed in detail below. Examiner notes that while matter from Claim 8 has been incorporated into Claim 1, this revision results in a change in dependency, since Claim 8 was previously dependent to limitations recited in Claim 7, and indirectly dependent to Claim 1. Claim 8 was previously evaluated in consideration of dependence on limitations of Claim 7. Thus, amendments require further evaluation.
Regarding Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f)
As noted in previous office action (Non Final Rejection dated 04/29/2026), interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f) is not a formal rejection; invoking 112 (f) is intended to facilitate examination by providing guidance for claim interpretation. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 20 was noted in previous office action as being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f). Applicant has amended Claim 20 and argued that these claims are not intended to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f). Accordingly, Claim 20 is interpreted herein as written, applying broadest reasonable interpretation and using plain meaning.
Regarding Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1-20 were held to be patent ineligible based on analysis under 35 U.S.C. §101 in previous office action.
Applicant argues (REMARKS, Pg10-11, 1.) that claims do not recite a judicial exception in consideration of USPTO Memorandum with subject “Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101” dated August 4, 2025 (“Memo-August 2025”). As noted, rejection of Claim 1 was based on determination that limitations therein recited an Abstract Idea in the Mathematical Concept or Mental Process grouping" (Non Final Rejection, p. 8). Specifically, Applicant argues (REMARKS, Pg10-11) that limitations as currently amended do not recite the judicial exception of Abstract Idea in the Mathematical Concept or Mentel Steps groups. Examiner respectfully disagrees, with detailed analysis presented below.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, Pg11, 2.) that claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 integrate recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application in analysis under STEP2A-PRONG TWO. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant points to specification wherein “drawbacks with conventional techniques for recommending media content” are found along with amended claim language. Applicant further argues (REMARKS, Pg, PP3) that recited elements of independent claim 1 reflect specific improvements “as described in the specification”. As noted above, amended claim limitations have introduced a change in dependency which has not previously been considered, requiring further evaluation, as presented in detail below. Examiner notes under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. While understanding of the claims may be guided by the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (MPEP 2111.01, I.-II.), i.e., language from the specification cannot be imported into claim limitations.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, Pg, PP3) similarity to the examples presenting Ex part Desjardins in consideration of independent claim 1, specifically regarding analysis under STEP2A-PRONG TWO to determine whether limitations integrate the recited Abstract Idea into a practical application related to a determination based on whether or not specific improvements as described in the specification are reflected in claim limitations. Applicant argues (REMARKS, Pg15, Last Paragraph) the limitation of “self-calibrating, biometric feedback-driven content delivery system” provides integration of the Abstract Idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees, with guidance from USPTO Memorandum with subject: “Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins” dated December 5, 2025, and maintains that claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception.
Applicant further argues (REMARKS, Pg16, 3.) that Claim 1 recites an inventive when analyzed under STEP 2B, that the claimed subject matter provides an inventive concept of a self-calibrating, biometric feedback-driven content delivery system”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes Examiner notes as above, understanding of the claims may be guided by the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (MPEP 2111.01, I.-II.), i.e., language from the specification cannot be imported into claim limitations.
With guidance from MPEP, and memos as discussion above, and in consideration of amendments to claim limitations, Examiner maintains rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, with detailed step by step analysis presented below.
Regarding claim rejection under U.S.C. 35 § 103
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 were rejected in previous office action under obvious combination of prior art by JAIN (US 20120130202 A1) in view of ALLEN (US 20220392625 A1) and/or KNOX (US 20210204023 A1).
Specifically, Applicant arguments (REMARKS, Pg17) are directed to limitations of Claim 1, as currently amended, concluding that JAIN when combined with ALLEN does not teach each and every element of Claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that JAIN in view of ALLEN did teach each and every element of Claim 1 as presented for examination in previous office action with a proper obvious combination as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner notes that Claim 1, as currently amended includes matter and revised dependency that has not previously been considered, requiring further search and evaluation to determine whether or not the claimed invention differentiates over prior art made available on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Applicant argues (REMARKS, Pg 18) that reference by ALLEN, teaching use of an “emotional signature”, “is not analogous to the claimed at least one biometric parameter.” Examiner respectfully disagrees, and points to ALLEN, as cited in previous office action, the term “emotional signature” as defined by ALLEN, as a value based on biometric data, see [0082] “emotional signature uses both physical metrics of the user and cognitive metrics of the user”, where Examiner interprets “physical metrics of the user” to be indicative of and analogous to “biometric” data. Applicant further argues (REMARKS Pg18-19) use of reference by KNOX, as “and has not been shown to remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to Jain and Allen”. However, Examiner points to reliance of KNOX for teaching limitations recited in Claims 4 and 16, and was not relied on to teach claim limitations referenced “above”. Examiner asserts KNOX as forming a proper obvious combination with references by JAIN as modified by ALLEN to teach limitations as recited in Claims 6 and 16, as presented in detail in previous office action, and notes that limitations presented in independent claims 1, 13, and 20, as currently amended include matter not previously considered, required new search and evaluation.
As discussed above, amended claim language requires further search and evaluation. New grounds of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, are presented in detail below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are held to be patent ineligible, as explained below.
Specifically, Claim 1, and similarly limitations of Claims 13 and 20, as currently amended, recite a judicial exception (bold emphasis added):
“method for content delivery at a device, comprising:
receiving biometric data associated with a user from a wearable device;
determining that at least one biometric parameter of a set of biometric parameters associated with the biometric data satisfies a threshold during an occasion;
selecting media content from a set of media content for recommending to the user, wherein each respective media content of the set of media content is scored based at least in part on a respective effectiveness associated with each respective media content for controlling a value of the at least one biometric parameter,
wherein the selecting is triggered based at least in part on the at least one biometric parameter satisfying the threshold, and
wherein the media content is selected based at least in part on a score associated with the media content;
outputting the media content via a graphical user interface of the device during the occasion. ;
receiving biometric feedback data associated with the user from the wearable device,
the biometric feedback data collected during a portion of a duration associated with interaction of the user with the media content;
determining a change to the at least one biometric parameter based at least in part on receiving the biometric feedback data; and
adjusting the score associated with the media content based at least in part on determining the change, the adjusted score affecting a likelihood the media content is subsequently recommended to the user in the future.
STEP 1 – Determination of statutory category: Claim 1 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101, namely: Method (process). Claims 13 and 20 fall within the categories of Machine (Apparatus) and Manufacture (Non transitory computer-readable medium), respectively.
STEP 2A-PRONG ONE – Determination regarding whether claim recites a judicial exception: Applying broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), Claim 1 limitations noted above with bold emphasis, recite a judicial exception. Such limitations constitute a judicial exception of Abstract Idea because under BRI and using 2024 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the limitations fall into the grouping of subject matter that covers performing mathematics or mental steps. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), I.A,C, III.B,C) Examiner notes understanding, based on other language recited by Claim 1, including “graphical user interface”, and in preamble “content delivery at a device”, that steps of the judicial exception as recited may involve, at least in part, performing mathematics using at least some generic computer components. Examiner also understand it possible that some processes may involve mental steps involving pen and paper depending on the complexity of the process.
While understanding that independent Claims 13 and 20 differ in scope from Claim1, these claims recite similar features which recite a judicial exception of Abstract Idea, with language falling into the grouping of subject matter that covers performing mathematics or mental steps, as discussed above regarding Claim 1.
STEP 2A-PRONG TWO: Evaluation of additional elements to determine whether
the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception:
Claim 1, and similarly Claims 13 and 20, does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Examiner notes additional elements recited in Claim 1, including (list numbers added for clarity in discussion):
“receiving biometric data associated with a user from a wearable device”, outputting the media content via a graphical user interface of the device during the occasion;
“receiving biometric feedback data associated with the user from the wearable device”;
“biometric feedback data collected during a portion of a duration associated with interaction of the user with the media content”; and
media content is subsequently recommended to the user in the future.
Regarding (1), (2), and (3), the additional element recited is understood as necessary data gathering required to provide data for carrying out the judicial exception as defined in analysis above. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), limitations reciting necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data), even when linked to a particular data
source or a type of data, are considered to be insignificant extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Additionally, language in additional elements (1), (2), and (3), recite steps which are considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, but does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Regarding (4), the limitation is interpreted as an output step, considered an insignificant extra-solution activity, namely post-solution activity. Such additional elements may include a display, storage, or transmission results based on execution of the abstract idea, but does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as determined using guidance MPEP section 2106.05(g), displaying analysis/results is considered extra solution activity in light of Electric Power Group, LLC v.
The same reasoning and rationale is applied to parallel limitations recited in Claims 13 and 20, such that additional elements are considered to be insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking to a particular technological environment. As above, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Thus, Claims 1, 13, and 20 recite a judicial exception of Abstract Idea in the Mathematical Concept (or Mental Steps) grouping.
STEP 2B – Consideration of whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea: Claim 1, and similarly Claims 13 and 20, does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. As noted above, there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Additional elements, as discussed above in analysis under STEP 2A, do not amount significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the identified additional elements are considered and understood to be necessary data gathering, or generally linking the judicial exception to a field of use or technological field. Where it is understood that even when data gathering is linked to a particular data source or a type of data, such limitations are considered to be insignificant extra solution activity. Examiner further notes that even if understood that generic computer elements, such discussed above, are used to perform the abstract idea, such elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As found in MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.)
Thus, Claim 1, and based on the same reasoning and rationale, Claims 13 and 20, is directed to the judicial exception.
Further eligibility consideration includes evaluation of dependent Claims 2-12, with direct or indirect dependency to Claim 1 and Claims 14-19 with dependency to Claim 13. Evaluation of dependent claims reveals limitations with additional elements which further limit performance of the judicial exception, directed to limiting mathematical processes or calculations to determine quantitative or qualitative results, are considered as necessary data gathering or insignificant field of use limitations. including at least Claims 2-6, 9, and 14-18; and/or additional elements which generally link the judicial exception with a particular technical field or recited particular data source/type, including at least Claims 9-12, and 16-17. Examiner notes Claim 8 recites additional elements of “outputting a representation of the change to at least one biometric parameter” considered to be data gathering (i.e. receiving data) or displaying analysis / results, as discussed above.
When considered individually or as a whole, the additional elements identified in dependent claims do not amount to more than the judicial exception nor integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1-20 are held to be patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims* 1-3, 5-8,10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over JAIN (US 20120130202 A1) in view of ALLEN (US 20220392625 A1).
*Examiner notes independent claims are considered and presented first.
With regard to Claims 1, 13, and 20, JAIN teaches:
(Claim 1) A method for content delivery at a device, comprising: ;
(Claim 13) An apparatus for content delivery, comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: ;
(Claim 20) A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions for content delivery, the instructions are executable by one or more processors, individually or in any combination, to: (JAIN is in same technical field, see Abstract “accessing data streams from accelerometers or kinesthetic sensors affixed to a person's body”; and teaches content delivery, see FIG. 1 with [0022]: “Analysis system 180 may monitor, store, and analyze one or more data streams from sensor array 110 (i.e., “content”)…Display system 190 may render, visualize, display, message, notify, and publish to one or more users or systems (i.e., “delivery)”; teaches use of standard computing components, see FIG12 with [0156]: “computer system 1200 includes a processor 1202, memory 1204”; and [0041]: “analysis system 180 may transmit instructions to one or more sensors to cause the apparatus to: receive biometric data associated with a user from a wearable device”, and [0157]: “processor 1202 includes hardware for executing instructions”)
receiving biometric data associated with a user from a wearable device; and teaches wearable device, see [0032]: “Biosensor”, and FIG. 1, elements 610, 620, with [0056]: “ring-based sensor 600 comprises a wrist element 610 and a ring element 620(i.e., “wearable device”)”;
determining that at least one biometric parameter of a set of biometric parameters associated with the biometric data satisfies a threshold during an occasion; (JAIN, see [0039]: “if the stimulus measured by a sensor (i.e. “biometric parameter”) is different from the outcome predicted by some model or falls outside some threshold range (i.e. “satisfies a threshold)”; and [0079]: “data logging system may record data streams as one or more data sets (i.e., “set of biometric parameters”)”; and see [0150]: “display system 190 will only send the analysis output to a healthcare provider when one or more threshold criteria are met”; and FIG. 8, with [0012]: “sensor for collecting information of a physiological event (i.e., “during an occasion”)”; Examiner applies BRI to interpret “an occasion” to mean generally any circumstance or event experiences by a user, analogous to “physiological event” as recited in reference)
selecting media content from a set of media content for recommending to the user, (JAIN, see [0053]: “mood sensor 400 may provide therapeutic feedback to the user either during or after the user inputs a negative mood or activity (i.e. “selecting media content”)…Mood sensor 400 may also provide information on where the user can seek other therapies, such as specific recommendations for medical care providers, hospitals, etc. (i.e. “from a set of media content for recommending to the user”)”)
each respective media content of the set of media content is scored based at least in part on controlling a value of the at least one biometric parameter (JAIN, see [0054-58]: “mood sensor 400 may administer one or more therapies or therapeutic feedbacks …may provide therapeutic feedback to the user based on output from analysis system 180…if a heart-rate monitor in sensor array 110 indicates an increase in the user's heart-rate (i.e., “based on controlling a value of the at least one biometric parameter”)”; and [0169]: “one or more ranking algorithms to rank identified network resources…a ranking algorithm implemented by a search engine 1322 may use a machine-learned ranking formula (i.e., “media content is scored”)”; Examiner applies BRI and uses plain meaning for “scored” to be analogous to reference concept of “ranking”, to mean assigning some quantitative or qualitative criteria to determine value or importance from among multiple options.)
selecting is triggered based at least in part on the at least one biometric parameter satisfying the threshold ([0052]: “if a heart-rate monitor in sensor array 110 indicates an increase in the user's heart-rate” (i.e. “biometric parameter”), mood sensor 400 may query the user to input his current mood and activity”; [0053]: “response to this determination (i.e.., “triggered”)…may deliver a variety of therapies, such as interventions, biofeedback, breathing exercises, progressive muscle relaxation exercises, presentation of personal media (e.g., music, personal pictures, etc.)”; and [0150]: “may automatically send the analysis output to one or more healthcare providers…display system 190 will only send the analysis output to a healthcare provider when one or more threshold criteria are met”)
outputting the media content via a graphical user interface of the device during the occasion; (JAIN, see FIG. 4 depicting user interface, and FIG. 2, element 290 “Display System” with [0027]: “Analysis system 280 may transmit one or more analysis outputs based on the one or more data streams to one or more display systems 290 (i.e. via a graphical user interface)”, and [0022]: “Display system 190 may render, visualize, display, message, notify, and publish to one or more users or systems”; and [0053]: “may provide therapeutic feedback to the user either during or after the user inputs a negative mood or activity. For example, if the user touches the "angry" button (i.e. via graphical user interface), the display may change to show a calming image of puppies playing in the grass (i.e., “during the occasion”)”)
JAIN does not explicitly teach:
media content is scored based at least in part on a respective effectiveness associated with each respective media content
media content is selected based at least in part on a score associated with the media content;
receiving biometric feedback data associated with the user from the wearable device,
the biometric feedback data collected during a portion of a duration associated with interaction of the user with the media content;
determining a change to the at least one biometric parameter based at least in part on receiving the biometric feedback data;
adjusting the score associated with the media content based at least in part on determining the change, the adjusted score affecting a likelihood the media content is subsequently recommended to the user in the future.
ALLEN teaches:
media content is scored based at least in part on a respective effectiveness associated with each respective media content (ALLEN is in same technical field, see Abstract: “”user data comprises at least image data, text input, biometric data, and audio data, and may have been captured using one or more sensors on the user device”, and [0002]: “methods and systems for an interface to provide activity recommendations (i.e., “media content”) by monitoring user activity with sensors (i.e., “biometric parameter”)”; teaches scoring resources, see [0068]: “set of activity records located based on the emotional signature of the user and ranked (i.e., “scored”) for improving user's wellbeing (i.e., “a respective effectiveness”)… display of the visual elements can be controlled by the hardware processor based on the emotional signature (i.e., “based on respective effectiveness”)of the user and ranked activities.”; Examiner interprets “score” as discussed above, as analogous to reference concept of “rank”. )
media content is selected based at least in part on a score associated with the media content; (ALLEN teaches content selected based on score, [0006]: “interface to provide activity recommendations generated (i.e., “content is selected”)…set of activity records located (i.e., “media content”) based on the emotional signature of the user and ranked for improving user's wellbeing” (i.e., “score associated with media content”))
receiving biometric feedback data associated with the user from the wearable device, (ALLEN is in same technical field, [0071]: “devices described herein may use one or more sensors to capture user data…sensors may include…biometric sensors (such as a heart monitor, blood pressure monitor, skin wetness monitor, electroencephalogram (EEG)”; and [0077]: “smart wearable”)
the biometric feedback data collected during a portion of a duration associated with interaction of the user with the media content; (ALLEN teaches collection of biometric data as above, Abstract, [0002], and [0071]; and feedback during interaction, see [0181]: “application 1010 can continue to monitor the user…during performance of the activity (i.e., “Interaction of user with the media content”) to collect feedback data” ; and [0186]: “biometric inputs of users measured in real time during the class using the user device 16”; Using BRI and plain meaning, Examiner interprets “during…interaction of the user with the media content” to be analogous to reference of “during performance of activity” and “during the class”, where activity recommendations are further described in [0125]: “recommendations may include consuming content (e.g. video, audio, one-on-one therapy)”)
determining a change to the at least one biometric parameter based at least in part on receiving the biometric feedback data; (ALLEN teaching determining change, see [0131]-[0132]: “monitoring an emotional signature for each user, recommendation system 100 is able to build a dataset of emotional signatures (stored as emotional signature records) and corresponding recommendations that are likely to improve individual emotional signatures.”; where user provides feedback, see above, [0181]; and see [0101]: “data may be processed to detect and quantify changes in levels of cognitive-affective competencies (i.e., “change to the at least one biometric parameter”), and any other information used to measure the user's emotional signature”)
adjusting the with the media content based at least in part on determining the change, the adjusted score affecting a likelihood the media content is subsequently recommended to the user in the future. (ALLEN, see [0073]: “recommendations may be based on recommendations that have shown, in connection with similar emotional signatures of other users, to show an improvement in the emotional signature (i.e., “determining the change”) in response to the recommendations being carried out”, and [0129]: “may determine that an emotional signature shows improvement…On the other hand, an emotional signature may show deterioration…recommendation system may…adjust the recommendations that are generated in response to determining the updated emotional signature of the user”; and teaches adjustments for future recommendations, [0130]: :signatures may therefore be associated with particular recommendations that have been shown to improve those emotional signatures over time…may be stored for example in databases 12 for future use…may access databases 12 to identify a recommendation or recommendations that have been shown to result in an improvement to similar emotional signatures for other users of recommendation system 100”; and see example presented in [0131]; )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify JAIN to incorporate the detailed steps of, scoring media based at least in part on a respective effectiveness associated with each respective media content, selecting media content based at least in part on a score associated with the media content, receiving biometric feedback data associated with the user from the wearable device wherein the biometric feedback data collected during a portion of a duration associated with interaction of the user with the media content, determining a change to the at least one biometric parameter based at least in part on receiving the biometric feedback data, and adjusting the score associated with the media content based at least in part on determining the change wherein the adjusted score affects a likelihood that the media content is subsequently recommended to the user in the future, as that taught by ALLEN because these steps would leverage the system of JAIN with customized steps in a way that would take advantage and effectively use biometric data and user feedback to provide recommendations for experiences that would be more likely to respond to user-specific data. The media/content selection method details as disclosed by ALLEN would be an obvious and logical way to improve the method/system as taught by JAIN without significant additional cost and provide reasonable expectation of effectively addressing the problem of deficiencies in content selection and delivery for a user. By leveraging the processing resources taught by JAIN, teaching a limited rank evaluation of content, to further process user data and user feedback to score content based on user interaction with content, as taught by ALLEN, the system would be “better suited to carrying out the relatively resource intensive processing of user data”. As further taught by ALLEN, one of ordinary skill would appreciate the enhanced customization of content delivery to a unique, individual user as an advantageous improvement to the invention disclosed by JAIN.
With respect to Claims 2 and 14, JAIN as modified by ALLEN, teaches the method and apparatus of Claims 1 and 13, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach:
correlating the at least one biometric parameter to a set of users associated with the at least one biometric parameter and the media content,
one or more users of the set of users previously being recommended the media content,
selecting the media content is further based at least in part on correlating the at least one biometric parameter to the set of users associated with the at least one biometric parameter and the media content.
ALLEN further teaches:
correlating the at least one biometric parameter to a set of users associated with the at least one biometric parameter and the media content, (ALLEN, see [0034]: “receiving user data relating to one or more additional users…user data comprises…biometric data relating to the one or more additional users…processing the user data… determining users with similar emotional signatures (i.e., “correlating …to a set of users”)…generating one or more activity recommendations for transmission to interfaces of users with similar emotional signatures. (i.e., “associated with media content”)”
one or more users of the set of users previously being recommended the media content, (ALLEN, see [0073]: “recommendations may be based on recommendations that have shown, in connection with similar emotional signatures of other users, to show an improvement in the emotional signature in response to the recommendations being carried out.”)
selecting the media content is further based at least in part on correlating the at least one biometric parameter to the set of users associated with the at least one biometric parameter and the media content. (ALLEN, as above, [0034]: “biometric data relating to the one or more additional users…processing the user data…determining users with similar emotional signatures…generating one or more activity recommendations (i.e., “selecting the media content”) for transmission to interfaces of users with similar emotional signatures.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify JAIN to include the steps of correlating the at least one biometric parameter to a set of users associated with the at least one biometric parameter and the media content, where one or more users of the set of users previously being recommended the media content, and selecting the media content is further based at least in part on correlating the at least one biometric parameter to the set of users associated with the at least one biometric parameter and the media content, as that taught by ALLEN because including biometric data and user feedback collectively for data analysis of groups would provide a broader range of understanding for selection of the most effective media content, particularly when based on analysis of previous use by several users of proposed recommendation for media content, as taught by ALLEN. One of ordinary skill would view broader data analysis to inform decisions as advantageous improvement to the invention disclosed by JAIN, that could be incorporated at little to no cost, while providing a more robust way to determine and select media content for delivery to a user,
With respect to Claims 3 and 15, JAIN as modified by ALLEN, teaches the method and apparatus of Claims 1 and 13, and JAIN further teaches:
determining that the at least one biometric parameter satisfied the threshold (JAIN, as above, teaches use of biometric parameters and thresholding, see [0039], “stimulus measured by a sensor (i.e. “biometric parameter”) is different from the outcome predicted by some model or falls outside some threshold range (i.e. “satisfies a threshold)”; and see [0079]: “data logging system may record data streams as one or more data sets (i.e., “set of biometric parameters”)”; and [0150]: “display system 190 will only send the analysis output to a healthcare provider when one or more threshold criteria are met”) during a previous occasion ([0054]: “Mood sensor 400 may access a local data store (e.g., prior mood and activity input stored on the user's smart phone) or a remote data store…mood sensor 400 may access and display mood and activity information previously recorded by mood sensor 400”)
JAIN as modified by ALLEN and taught above, does not explicitly teach:
determining that the at least one biometric parameter during a previous occasion
determining that the media content was previously selected for recommending to the user during the previous occasion,
selecting the media content is further based at least in part on determining that the at least one biometric parameter satisfied the threshold during the previous occasion and determining that the media content was previously selected for recommending to the user during the previous occasion.
ALLEN further teaches:
determining that the at least one biometric parameter during a previous occasion (ALLEN, as above, teaches monitoring biometric parameters during user interactions with content, see [0181]: “application 1010 can continue to monitor the user…during performance of the activity (i.e., “Interaction of user with the media content”))
determining that the media content was previously selected for recommending
to the user during the previous occasion, (ALLEN, see [0083]: “can use user data captured during the user session and can also use user data captured during previous user sessions”; and see example presented in [0131]: “Recommendation system 100 recently (e.g. in a previous user session or as part of the same user session) recommended to Alice that she spend more time in the outdoors (e.g. recommended activity involved nature)…therefore makes the same recommendation to Jonathan, given his similar emotional signature to the emotional signature of Alice.”)
selecting the media content is further based at least in part on determining that the at least one biometric parameter satisfied the threshold during the previous occasion and determining that the media content was previously selected for recommending to the user during the previous occasion. (ALLEN, see [0132]: “recommendation system 100 is able to build a dataset of emotional signatures… corresponding recommendations that are likely to improve individual emotional signatures.”; and [0140]: “system 1000 can manipulate the external sensory environment based on the activity inputs (e.g., type of activity, content, class intensity, class durations) received at user device 16, biometric inputs of users measured in real time during the class using the user device 16, as well as users' individual emotional signatures calculated by the system 1000 during previous sessions.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify JAIN to include the steps determining that the at least one biometric parameter during a previous occasion, determining that the media content was previously selected for recommending to the user during the previous occasion, selecting the media content is further based at least in part on determining that the at least one biometric parameter satisfied the threshold during the previous occasion and determining that the media content was previously selected for recommending to the user during the previous occasion, as taught by ALLEN because these detailed steps involve a more rigorous analysis of user data and feedback, which would result in a more customized delivery of effective content for a specific user. One of ordinary skill would understand the advantage of including the analysis of whether or not media was previously effective by determining whether a particular media content had been recommended before based on similar biometric data would be a way to better provide meaningful and impactful user experience to achieve control of a biometric parameter, and would improve the method and system of JAIN, as modified above without significant revision to the system taught by JAIN, and involving little to no additional cost for the improved analysis.
With respect to Claims 5 and 17, JAIN as modified by ALLEN, teaches the method and apparatus of Claims 1 and 13. JAIN further teaches:
determining an activity associated with the user during the occasion; (JAIN, see [0037]: “biosensor measurements are highly dependent the physical activity…sensor network 100 may monitor and analyze a user's activity…For example, accelerometer data that shows that a user was active during a certain time period may be used”; Examiner interprets “during the occasion” as above.)
correlating the activity associated with the user to one or more of the at least
one biometric parameter and the media content, (JAIN, see [0037]: “accelerometer data that shows that a user was active during a certain time period may be used”(i.e., “biometric data”), and [0103]: “analysis system 180 may also monitor data streams containing treatment or therapy information (i.e., associated with “media content”)”)
selecting the media content is further based at least in part on the correlating the activity associated with the user to one or more of the at least one biometric parameter and the media content. (JAIN, see [0053]: “mood sensor 400 may provide therapeutic feedback to the user either during or after the user inputs a negative mood or activity…if a heart-rate monitor in sensor array 110 indicates an increase in the user's heart-rate, and the user inputs "stressed" into mood sensor 400, the analysis system 180 may determine that a therapeutic feedback is needed…may play relaxing music to calm the user (i.e., “selecting media content”).”; Examiner applies BRI and use of plain meaning to interpret “correlating” as analogous to relationship taught in reference between a measured biometric parameter and subsequent selection of content delivered to user. )
With respect to Claims 6 and 18, JAIN as modified by ALLEN, teaches the method and apparatus of Claims 1 and 13. JAIN further teaches:
media content score indicating controlling the value of the at least one biometric parameter, as above, (JAIN, as above, [0054-58], and [0169])
JAIN as modified by ALLEN and taught above, does not explicitly teach:
identifying a respective score associated with each respective media content of
the set of media content,
the respective score indicating the respective effectiveness associated with each respective media content of the set of media content for controlling the value of the at least one biometric parameter,
wherein selecting the media content is further based at least in part on
identifying the respective score associated each respective media content of the set of media content.
ALLEN further teaches:
identifying a respective score associated with each respective media content of
the set of media content, (ALLEN, as above, [0068]: “set of activity records located based on the emotional signature of the user and ranked (i.e., “scored”)”)
the respective score indicating the respective effectiveness associated with each respective media content of the set of media content for controlling the value of the at least one biometric parameter (ALLEN, As above, [0068]: “set of activity records located based on the emotional signature of the user and ranked (i.e., “scored”) for improving user's wellbeing (i.e., “a respective effectiveness”)…display of the visual elements can be controlled by the hardware processor based on the emotional signature of the user and ranked activities.”; and see [0128] “repeated interaction of the user with the emotional wellbeing application on their user device 16, the emotional signature of the user may be tracked or monitored”; [0137]: “system 1100 may change the recommendations in the program based on the current emotional signatures of the matching persons to maintain deep meaningful connections” (i.e., “controlling value”))
wherein selecting the media content is further based at least in part on identifying the respective score associated each respective media content of the set of media content. (ALLEN, as above, [0006]: “interface to provide activity recommendations generated (i.e., “content is selected”)…set of activity records located based on the emotional signature of the user and ranked for improving user's wellbeing” (i.e., “score associated with media content”))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify JAIN to include the steps of identifying a respective score associated with each respective media content of the set of media content, the respective score indicating the respective effectiveness associated with each respective media content of the set of media content for controlling the value of the at least one biometric parameter, wherein selecting the media content is further based at least in part on identifying the respective score associated each respective media content of the set of media content, as that taught by ALLEN because these detailed steps broaden the analysis of user data and feedback to better inform a selection method using user-based evidence to customize content delivery to a unique, individual user and would be viewed as an advantageous improvement to the invention disclosed by JAIN. It would allow for the method of JAIN to be more efficient by selecting a media content from among a well characterized set of media content which has already been ranked based on user interaction, and where scores, such as taught by ALLEN would allow for a more accurate and reliable recommendation for media content for a user.
With respect to Claims 7 and 19, JAIN as modified by ALLEN, teaches the method and apparatus of Claims 1 and 13. JAIN further teaches:
receiving an input from the user via the graphical user interface of the device; (JAIN, as above, FIG4 with [0048]: “Mood collection interface 420 is configured to receive signals from the user.”)
enabling the media content for a duration associated with the media content
based at least in part on receiving the input from the user via the graphical user interface of the device; (JAIN, see [0050] : “user may touch one or more of the mood icons to input his current mood…user may touch the drop-down menu to input one or more activities (i.e. “media content”) corresponding to a selected mood.”)
monitoring for biometric feedback data associated with the user from the
wearable device during the duration associated with the media content based at least in part on the enabling. (JAIN, see [0050]: “allow the user to input a variety of mood, intensity, and activity information for any time or time period (i.e., duration associated with the media content”)”, and [0051]: “mood sensor 400 is a sensor in sensor array receiving the mood, intensity, activity, and time inputs (i.e., “feedback data associated with user”)…may transmit the data as one or more data streams to analysis system 180 (i.e., “monitoring”)”)
With respect to Claim 8 JAIN as modified by ALLEN, teaches the method and apparatus of Claims 7.
JAIN, as modified by ALLEN and taught above, does not explicitly teach:
outputting a representation of the change to the at least one biometric parameter via the graphical user interface of the device.
ALLEN further teaches:
outputting a representation of the change to the at least one biometric parameter via the graphical user interface of the device. (ALLEN, see [0007]: “system has a user device comprising one or more sensors for capturing user data during the time period, and a transmitter for transmitting the captured user data to the interface”; [0132]: “generating and monitoring an emotional signature for each user, recommendation system 100 is able to build a dataset of emotional signatures (stored as emotional signature records) and corresponding recommendations that are likely to improve individual emotional signatures. (i.e., “change to…biometric parameter”)”; Examiner notes reference “emotional signature” is defined as a value based on biometric data, see [0082] “emotional signature uses both physical metrics of the user and cognitive metrics of the user”; and see [0068]: “display of the visual elements can be controlled by the hardware processor based on the emotional signature of the user and ranked activities”; and see [0189]: “wellbeing application 1010 updates its interface to display visual effects based on the emotional signature and also based on the activity recommendation received by the recommendation system “)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify JAIN to include the step of outputting a representation of the change to the at least one biometric parameter via the graphical user interface of the device, as that taught by ALLEN because this would improve the method of JAIN by providing immediate feedback regarding success of the implementation of a recommended media content and increase user interaction with the system, which would in turn allow for timely feedback by the user, and further allow for any identified adjustments to improve the user experience.
With respect to Claim 10, JAIN as modified by ALLEN, teaches the method of Claim 1. JAIN further teaches:
wherein the media content comprises audio content or video content. (JAIN, see [0144] : “display system 190 may render and visualize data based on analysis output from analysis system 180…may render and visualize using any suitable means, including computer system 1400 with a suitable I/O device, such as a video monitor, speaker, touch screen, printer, another suitable I/O device or a combination of two or more of these.)
With respect to Claim 11, JAIN as modified by ALLEN, teaches the method of Claim 1. JAIN further teaches:
at least one biometric parameter comprises heart rate data associated with the user, respiratory rate data associated with the user, sleep data associated with the user, activity data associated with the user, or any combination thereof. (JAIN, see [0021]: “sensors that are affixed to or carried by the user (e.g., a heart-rate monitor “)
With respect to Claim 12, JAIN as modified by ALLEN, teaches the method of Claim 1. JAIN further teaches:
wherein the wearable device comprises a wearable ring device. (JAIN, see FIG. 6, element 620, with [0056]: “ring-based sensor…ring element 620.”)
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over JAIN-2012 in view of ALLEN, and further in view of KNOX (US 20210204023 A1).
With respect to Claims 4 and 16, JAIN as modified by ALLEN, teaches the method and apparatus of Claims 1 and 13. JAIN teaches as above,
biometric parameter satisfying the threshold, (JAIN, as above, see [0052])
JAIN, as modified by ALLEN and taught above, does not explicitly teach:
analyzing a profile associated with the user based at least in part on the at least one biometric parameter satisfying a threshold
the profile indicating one or more media content associated with the set of media content previously recommended to the user,
the profile indicating a user feedback associated with the one or more media content associated with the set of media content previously recommended to the user,
wherein selecting the media content is further based at least in part on analyzing the profile associated with the user.
KNOX teaches:
analyzing a profile associated with the user based at least in part on the at least one biometric parameter satisfying the threshold, (KNOX is in same technical field, see ABSTRACT: “method initially senses feedback of the user experience, wherein the user experience include one or more of the following three dimensional geolocation status, temporal status, experiential status, physiological status and emotional status (i.e., analyzing a profile associated with a user”)”; and FIG. 3 with [0011]: “generalized embodiment of exemplary data associated with a subject's user profile”, element 322 “Wearable Device”, and [0060]: ““wearable device” refers to a portable device or sensor appliance…equipped and with sensors attached to the skin for tracking, monitoring and recording biometrics”; and [0073]: “data 211 may be rendered as a particular data set value or measurement outcome for comparison, recommendation and prediction processes, which in turn may be converted to data markers 282 used as a threshold”)
the profile indicating one or more media content associated with the set of media content previously recommended to the user, (KNOX, see FIGURE 7-B, with [0020]: “exemplary method for assigning media connectedness data to a user profile”; and [0061]: “Synchronization may include a process where a subject's spontaneous behavioral responses are recorded and tracked in real time during the media event. This information is associated with media contextual data previously collected.”; and [0066]: “media experience data 122 may be comprised of collective information obtained from: …historical data media contextual data 108…and comparing previously unknown media contextual data 108 with historical preference information associated with a subject 116 while exposed to said media selection in various capacities and settings”)
the profile indicating a user feedback associated with the one or more media content associated with the set of media content previously recommended to the user, (KNOX, see [0066] “system 100 may analyze the collected media experience data 122 and render a connectedness data value 124.”);
selecting the media content is further based at least in part on analyzing the profile associated with the user. (KNOX, see FIGURE 7-B with [0020]: “exemplary method for assigning media connectedness data to a user profile according to one embodiment of the present disclosure.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify JAIN, as modified by ALLEN and taught above, to include the steps of analyzing a profile associated with the user based at least in part on the at least one biometric parameter satisfying a threshold, where the profile indicate: one or more media content associated with the set of media content previously recommended to the user and user feedback associated with the one or more media content associated with the set of media content previously recommended to the user, and where selecting the media content is further based at least in part on analyzing the profile associated with the user, such as that taught by KNOX because this would improve the method and system of JAIN, modified by ALLEN to further customize a user experience based on unique data from an individual user, and analysis to determine a best match for media content. The additional user-focused steps taught by KNOX would be seen as an obvious combination to improve a biometric-based media content delivery system to maximize effectiveness and user engagement thought customized media selection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Current amendments to Claim 9 maintain subject matter allowability.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Examiner identifies best prior art by JAIN, with modification using ALLEN, teaches the method of Claim 1. JAIN and ALLEN individually and/or in combination teach “assigning a rank to the media content”, but the identified prior art does not teach:
“rank assigned to media content for recommending to the user during a subsequent occasion and for ordering the media content in a list of media content provided to the user via the graphical user interface of the device based at least in part on the biometric change to the at least one biometric parameter of the set of biometric parameters associated with the biometric data.”
Further search did not reveal additional prior art to address this deficiency in the identified best art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, with prior art included in previous office action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONI D SAUNCY whose telephone number is (703)756-4589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TONI D SAUNCY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
