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 .
Status
This action is in response to the arguments filed on 2/9/2026. Claims 1-21 are pending. No claims are amended. No claims have been added. No claims have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued “The claims require: Estimating traversal data values for a plurality of node pairs along directed paths in a node hierarchy, Collecting interaction data across a plurality of users during playback, Generating category transition data dynamically from that interaction data, Selectively streaming video contents based on those traversal data values, Generating and transmitting a playlist containing digital media access pointers, used by a user device during streaming. These steps require real-time processing of interaction data from multiple users, maintaining and updating traversal metrics across a hierarchical data structure, and controlling network-based streaming behavior-operations that cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claims have a computer to perform the steps of the invention the computer is merely a tool to perform the steps of the invention. The claims are merely estimating values, collecting interaction data, generating data, streaming contents based on the data, generating and transmitting a playlist. The step of estimating traversal data values could be done mentally with pen and paper as a human could compute a distance or weight between nodes. The step of collecting interaction data across multiple users could be done as a user could observe how someone interacts with media and the information could be gathered. The step of generating a category transition data dynamically form interaction data merely involves analyzing patters which can be done by a human by reviewing data and counting transitions. The step of selectively streaming video content based on traversal data values although uses a device to perform the step of the invention is merely making a decision about which video to play. A human could perform this step once given the information. The step of generating and transmitting a playlist is merely information organization which human can do manually. The transmitting step is merely a conventional implementation. All of the claimed steps are directed to analyzing interaction data, estimating values, and making decisions. A human could perform all these steps using a computer as a tool.
The applicant has argued “The Office Action's second bucket ("organizing human activity") is also wrong. The claims are not directed to organizing human activity such as fundamental economic practices, interpersonal interactions, or social behaviors. Instead, the claims are directed to controlling video streaming behavior using a hierarchical node-based data model and traversal metrics derived from user interaction data. Any involvement of users is incidental data input, not the focus of the invention. As in McRO v. Bandai, the claims recite a specific, technology-based process that uses data-driven rules to produce an improved technical result, rather than merely automating human activity.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The step of collecting interaction data across multiple users during playback is tracking how humans interact. The step of selectively streaming video content based on traversal data is a method of coordinating content delivery to a human user based on received user patterns. The step of generating and transmitting playlists of digital media access pointers is structuring and distributing resources for human use. The invention is tracking humans interactions with media, using that information to guide decisions, and structuring the flow of digital content to users. The claims are directed to managing user interactions and guiding a media selection which falls within methods of organizing human activity.
The applicant has argued “When considered as a whole, the claims are directed to an improvement in computer technology for streaming digital media, specifically by improving how video content is selected, ordered, and streamed using traversal data across a hierarchical node structure. Similar to Enfish, the claims recite a specific data structure and associated processing that improves system functionality, rather than merely using a computer as a tool.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the applicant has argued that the invention provides improvements to streaming technology the claims merely implement the abstract idea on generic computing devices. Applicant’s specification does not sufficiently describe how the claimed steps provide a specific technical improvement in the computer itself. Therefore there is no support to demonstrate that this would be a technical solution. Unlike Enfish the claimed invention does not improve the computer system itself. The claimed invention implements an abstract idea on a generic computing device.
The applicant has argued “The claims do not rely on generic processing alone, but on a specific configuration and interaction of data structures, traversal metrics, and streaming control logic that produces a technical improvement in content delivery systems.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of selecting digital media content based on analyzing interaction patterns, which is a mental process and method of organizing human activities. While the steps of the claims are done by a generic computing device these elements do not provide a technological improvement to the operation of the computer system. The technology appears to be mainly conventional computer components to perform routine functions. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. The previous 101 rejection is maintained.
The applicant has amended the claims to overcome the previous prior art rejections. The closest prior art of record is Eksombatchai et al. (US 10671672 B1) which discloses how content recommendations may be determined by a recommendation service running a plurality of random walks through a node graph and tracking the nodes visited by the plurality of random walk and Lewis et al. (US 11062358 B1) which discloses providing an advertisement associated with a media item appearing in a feed based on user engagement with the media item. The most relevant prior art does not specifically teach assigning, by the one or more computing devices, a plurality of individual traversal data values estimated for a plurality of node pairs in the node hierarchy, wherein each node pair of the plurality of node pairs in the node hierarchy is formed by a first node at a starting point of a directed path in the node hierarchy and a second node at an ending point of the same directed path in the node hierarchy; selectively streaming, by the one or more computing devices, the plurality of video contents based at least in part on the plurality of individual traversal data values estimated for the plurality of node pairs to a plurality of user computing devices for a plurality of users to play back; generating based on the collected user interaction data, by the one or more computing devices, category transition data in addition to the plurality of individual traversal data values estimated for the plurality of node pairs in the node hierarchy.” The rejection is not withdrawn due to one claim limitation but the combination of the claimed elements.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-14 are directed to a system, and claims 15-21 are directed to a media. Therefore, claims 1-21 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 8, 15, recite selecting a set of video content constituting an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” related to managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals including social activities.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations including “identifying, …, that the content belongs to a respective content category of contents represented by a respective node in a plurality of nodes that form a node hierarchy; assigning, …, a plurality of individual traversal data values estimated for a plurality of node pairs in the node hierarchy, wherein each node pair of the plurality of node pairs in the node hierarchy is formed by a first node at a starting point of a directed path in the node hierarchy and a second node at an ending point of the same directed path in the node hierarchy; selectively streaming, …, the plurality of contents based at least in part on the plurality of individual traversal data values estimated for the plurality of node pairs for a plurality of users to play back; collecting user interaction data while a plurality of contents is being played back to the plurality of users; generating based on the collected user interaction data a plurality of individual traversal data values estimated for a plurality of node pairs in the node hierarchy; responsive to receiving a request for accessing a specific content in the plurality of contents for playback, selecting based at least in part on the plurality of individual traversal data values a set of selected contents from among the plurality of contents, wherein the selected contents include the specific content and one or more other selected contents; sending a content playlist with content pointers to access one or more selected contents, in the set of selected contents, for playback…use the content playlist to present one or more additional contents in the set of selected contents for continuing engagement,…uses a specific digital media access pointer in the content playlist to access and stream a file corresponding to the specific content for playback…” Claim 8 recites abstract limitations including “identifying, …, that the content belongs to a respective content category of contents represented by a respective node in a plurality of nodes that form a node hierarchy; assigning, …, a plurality of individual traversal data values estimated for a plurality of node pairs in the node hierarchy, wherein each node pair of the plurality of node pairs in the node hierarchy is formed by a first node at a starting point of a directed path in the node hierarchy and a second node at an ending point of the same directed path in the node hierarchy; selectively streaming, …, the plurality of contents based at least in part on the plurality of individual traversal data values estimated for the plurality of node pairs for a plurality of users to play back; collecting user interaction data while a plurality of contents is being played back to the plurality of users; generating based on the collected user interaction data a plurality of individual traversal data values estimated for a plurality of node pairs in the node hierarchy; responsive to receiving a request for accessing a specific content in the plurality of contents to the user for playback, selecting based at least in part on the plurality of individual traversal data values including the category transition data a set of selected contents from among the plurality of contents, wherein the selected contents include the specific content and one or more other selected contents; sending a content playlist with content pointers to access one or more selected contents, in the set of selected contents, for playback…use the content playlist to present one or more additional contents in the set of selected contents for continuing engagement, …uses a specific digital media access pointer in the content playlist to access and stream a file corresponding to the specific content for playback …” Claim 15 recites abstract limitations including “identifying, …, that the content belongs to a respective content category of contents represented by a respective node in a plurality of nodes that form a node hierarchy; assigning, …, a plurality of individual traversal data values estimated for a plurality of node pairs in the node hierarchy, wherein each node pair of the plurality of node pairs in the node hierarchy is formed by a first node at a starting point of a directed path in the node hierarchy and a second node at an ending point of the same directed path in the node hierarchy; selectively streaming, …, the plurality of contents based at least in part on the plurality of individual traversal data values estimated for the plurality of node pairs for a plurality of users to play back; collecting user interaction data while a plurality of contents is being played back to the plurality of users; generating based on the collected user interaction data category transition data in addition to the plurality of individual traversal data values estimated for a plurality of node pairs in the node hierarchy; responsive to receiving a request for accessing a specific content in the plurality of contents for playback, selecting based at least in part on the plurality of individual traversal data values including the category transition data a set of selected contents from among the plurality of contents, wherein the selected contents include the specific content and one or more other selected contents; sending a content playlist with content pointers to access one or more selected contents, in the set of selected contents, for playback... use the content playlist to present one or more additional contents in the set of selected contents for continuing engagement, … uses a specific digital media access pointer in the content playlist to access and stream a file corresponding to the specific content for playback…” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the language of “computing device”, “one or more processors,” covers an abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors,” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. For example, with the exception of the “using the at least one processor” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to a “Mental Process” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16, 19-21, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18, will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 8, 15, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a method comprising “collecting, from a plurality of user computing devices by one or more computing devices, “ “by one or more computing devices for each video content in a plurality of video contents,” “video file.” Claim 1 further recites “a user computing device.” Claim 8 is a system that recites limitations performed “one or more computing processors; one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing a program of instructions that is executable by the one or more computing processors to perform.” Claim 8 further recites the additional elements of “collecting, from a plurality of user computing devices by one or more computing devices,” “by one or more computing devices for each video content in a plurality of video contents,” “video file.” and “a user computing device.” Claim 15 is a media that recites limitations performed “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, storing one or more sequences of instructions, which when executed by one or more processors.” Claim 15 further recites the additional elements of “collecting, from a plurality of user computing devices by one or more computing devices,” “by one or more computing devices for each video content in a plurality of video contents,” “video file,” and “a user computing device.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to collect, generate, select, and send data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16, 19-21 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 3, 10, 17, introduces the additional element of “a randomized data generator.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 4, 11, 18, introduces the additional element of “wherein at least one of the one or more weights is determined by applying machine learning to the collected user interaction data.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 8, 15 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Claim 1 is a method comprising “collecting, from a plurality of user computing devices by one or more computing devices, “ “by one or more computing devices for each video content in a plurality of video contents,” “video file.” Claim 1 further recites “a user computing device.” Claim 8 is a system that recites limitations performed “one or more computing processors; one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing a program of instructions that is executable by the one or more computing processors to perform.” Claim 8 further recites the additional elements of “collecting, from a plurality of user computing devices by one or more computing devices,” “by one or more computing devices for each video content in a plurality of video contents,” “video file.” and “a user computing device.” Claim 15 is a media that recites limitations performed “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, storing one or more sequences of instructions, which when executed by one or more processors.” Claim 15 further recites the additional elements of “collecting, from a plurality of user computing devices by one or more computing devices,” “by one or more computing devices for each video content in a plurality of video contents,” “video file,” and “a user computing device.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g. to collect, generate, select, and send data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16, 19-21, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3, 10, 17, introduces the additional element of “a randomized data generator.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 4, 11, 18, introduces the additional element of “wherein at least one of the one or more weights is determined by applying machine learning to the collected user interaction data.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Pertinent prior art includes Eksombatchai et al. (US 10671672 B1) discloses how content recommendations may be determined by a recommendation service running a plurality of random walks through a node graph and tracking the nodes visited by the plurality of random walk. Lewis et al. (US 11062358 B1) discloses providing an advertisement associated with a media item appearing in a feed based on user engagement with the media item. Nair et al. (US 20110161409 A1), which discloses directed graph hierarchies. Mukhopadhyay et al. (US 11106728 B2) which discloses playlist ordering. Graham et al. (US 10909171 B2) which discloses Intelligent automated assistants (or digital assistants). Peterson et al. (US 20140172579 A1) which discloses monitoring a user accessing a media asset, determining an attentiveness level of the user.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270 5389. 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights