DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 21 May 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the amendments improve technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Improving algorithmic accuracy via a novel abstract idea is not an improvement to technology. See In re Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 991 F.3d 1245, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
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 1-2, 4-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
As per claims 1, 8, and 15:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “weighting the popularity data of a particular media item based, at least in part, on whether the particular media item is included in a main album,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “weighting” encompasses a person forming a judgment that, e.g., the observed popularity a main album is comparatively more significant than the observedpopularity of a soundtrack. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating blended relevance scores for the plurality of media items based on the popularity data and the acoustic similarity data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the score based on popularity and acoustic similarity. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “populating the customized media station with selected media items based on the blended relevance scores and the seed media item,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “populating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which items to include in the customized media station based on the scores. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, e.g., forming a judgment as to what songs to put on a playlist considering both acoustic similarity and popularity. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea of forming a judgment as to what songs to put on a playlist considering both acoustic similarity and popularity is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “obtaining, from a first data source, popularity data for a plurality of media items, the popularity data determined by scraping web pages to determine a number of mentions of the plurality of media items” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “obtaining, from a second data source, acoustic similarity data indicating acoustic similarities between the plurality of media items,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “obtaining, from a media consumer, user input indicating a seed media item for a customized media station,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “transmitting the customized media station to the media consumer,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention generally links the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to the technological field of streaming playlists. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “obtaining, from a first data source, popularity data for a plurality of media items, the popularity data determined by scraping web pages to determine a number of mentions of the plurality of media items” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “obtaining, from a second data source, acoustic similarity data indicating acoustic similarities between the plurality of media items,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “obtaining, from a media consumer, user input indicating a seed media item for a customized media station,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “transmitting the customized media station to the media consumer,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of forming a judgment as to what songs to put on a playlist considering both acoustic similarity and popularity because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 2, 9, and 16:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “generating a first data structure including a first node within the first data structure and a second node within the first data structure, the first node within the first data structure corresponding to a first media item of the plurality of media items, and the second node within first data structure corresponding to a second media item of the plurality of media items,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment how to represent the nodes using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “assigning a blended relevance score to an edge between the first node within the first data structure and the second node within the first data structure,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “assigning” encompasses a person forming a judgment how to record the weights using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 4, 11, and 17:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “building a plurality of second data structures including nodes corresponding to data from different data sources,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment how to represent the nodes using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 5, 12, and 18:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “the nodes of different second data structures of the plurality of second data structures correspond to different types of data associated with the plurality of media items,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment how to represent the types as nodes using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 6, 13, and 19:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “a first node within a particular second data structure corresponds to a first artist, and a second node within the particular second data structure corresponds to a second artist,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment how to represent relationships between artists as nodes using pen and paper. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 7, 14, and 20:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “assigning a value to an edge between the first node within the particular second data structure and the second node within the particular second data structure the value determined based on how frequently the first artist and the second artist are referenced together on one or more websites,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “assigning” and “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to how often two artists are referenced together. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art does not teach or suggest the abstract idea of generating blended relevance scores for a plurality of media items based on popularity data determined by scraping web pages to determine a number of mentions of the plurality of media items and acoustic similarity data indicating acoustic similarities between the plurality of media items. Novelty is of relevance to subject matter eligibility, however. MPEP § 2106.05.
Conclusion
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 WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights