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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 5/29/2026.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim invention pertains to: creating a list of multimedia assets from a plurality of multimedia assets for presentation to a user based on an anchor multimedia asset that is consumed by the user.
Claims 1-8 do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims 1 recites a process steps (i.e., a method). Claims 9-16 recite non-transitory computer readable storage media (i.e. manufacture) and claims 17-20 recite systems components (e.g. machine).
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. (MPEP 2106.04).
Representative claim 1 recites:
normalizing keywords associated with each multimedia asset among a plurality of multimedia assets by creating a many-to-one mapping of distinct keywords extracted from one or more dictionaries in one or more languages where one or more variants of a particular distinct keyword are mapped to the particular distinct keyword;
identifying a keyword associated with a specific multimedia asset, among the plurality of multimedia assets, retrieved from metadata and/or auxiliary data associated with the specific multimedia asset;
referencing a distinct keyword associated with the identified keyword from the many-to-one mapping; and
storing the distinct keyword with metadata for the specific multimedia asset;
creating an expanded list of keywords by adding the normalized keyword and augmenting the normalized keywords with additional keywords identified while normalizing the keywords; as an initial multimedia asset, among the plurality of multimedia assets, is being consumed by a user:
creating a candidate list of multimedia assets, from the plurality of multimedia assets, intended for presentation to the user based on the initial multimedia asset, one or more distinct keywords associated with the initial multimedia asset the expanded list of keywords, and any multimedia asset type limitations;
removing multimedia assets from the candidate list of multimedia assets that, according to one or more rules, are not to be consumed by the user;
calculating an expected user viewing length of each multimedia asset in the candidate list of multimedia assets;
calculating an estimated total length of engagement for the user based on historical interaction data, the total length of engagement represents an estimated total amount of time available to present a set of multimedia assets to the user that follow the initial multimedia asset;
selecting, in realtime, each multimedia asset in the set of multimedia assets from the candidate list of multimedia assets based on the expected user viewing length of the multimedia asset and a remaining estimated total length of engagement that is a running total of the estimated total length of engagement minus the expected user viewing length of all other multimedia assets that were previously selected for the set of multimedia assets;
creating an ordered playlist of the set of multimedia assets; sending the ordered playlist.
The limitations of creating a list of multimedia assets, estimating an expected user viewing length, selecting, and creating an ordered playlist, these limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “display device” (claim 1), “One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” (claim 9), “An apparatus comprising one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions” (claim 17) nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for display device, One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions in the context of this claim encompasses actions that a human could perform; e.g., a human can estimate user’s viewing and create an ordered playlist for multimedia assets.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the limitations mentioned above (i.e., creating, identifying, referencing storing, creating, removing, calculating and selecting in the context of this claim) as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, exemplify commercial interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), and falls within the “Certain Methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions, nothing in the claim elements disqualifies the steps from being commercial interactions including advertising. For example, but for the one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions, the steps of creating, identifying, referencing storing, creating, removing, calculating and selecting, in the context of this claim encompasses steps of creating a list of multimedia assets, estimating an expected user viewing length, selecting, and creating an ordered playlist .
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 further narrow the abstract idea, and do not recite any additional elements.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
“display device” (claim 1), “One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media” (claim 9), “An apparatus comprising one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions” (claim 17), are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. They are no more than a tool to perform the creating, identifying, referencing storing, creating, removing, calculating and selecting steps.
The additional elements of user device, one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, an apparatus comprising one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions are considered as “apply it” as the claim invokes the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (similar to Apple, Inc. v Ameranth and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v Capital One Bank (USA).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception).
Regarding the display device, one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, an apparatus comprising one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions, as seen above, these limitations have been interpreted as “apply it”. However, these limitations can be additionally interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, these limitations alone and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity).
Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). (MPEP 2106.05)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of display device, one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, an apparatus comprising one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions” alone and in combination amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the limitations “display device”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media”, “an apparatus comprising one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions” it is noted that sending information over a network has been recognized in the courts as being Well Understood Routine and Conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Therefore, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept. (MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art of record.
The invention pertains to: creating a list of multimedia assets from a plurality of multimedia assets for presentation to a user based on an anchor multimedia asset that is consumed by the user.
The closest prior art of record: Bernard (2012/0151511) and Howett (2013/0216200) teach: estimating a total length of engagement that represents (Fig. 4A, step 407, Para. 55, wherein the percentage and duration of viewing time corresponds to estimate a length of engagement, the duration of view of the content item corresponds to amount of time available to present a set of multimedia assets and Para. 51, wherein the current session viewed corresponds to current viewing, Bernard). Bernard doesn't explicitly disclose that represent a total amount of time that the user is likely to be engaged in order to present a set of multimedia asset that follow the anchor multimedia asset to the user. On the other hand, Howett disclose the method of represent a total amount of time available to present a set of multimedia asset to the user as shown in Fig. 5, and further described in Para. 0099, and Para. 0100, wherein the timeline of the total view time corresponds to estimating the represent total time for the different scenes which corresponds to a set of multimedia, wherein the SCENE 2-5 corresponds to the follow the anchor multimedia asset as further described in Fig. 5, step 514, Para. 0098-099.
However, Howett is a video editing system where the user manually assembles clips into a variable video. Howett makes no mention of “as the anchor multimedia asset is being consumed by the user; estimating a total length of engagement based on historical interaction data, the total length of engagement represents an estimated total amount of time available to present a set of multimedia assets that follow the anchor multimedia asset to the user; Thus, Howett does not provide what Bernard lacks.
Other references of record:
Walker teaches pairing the transaction data/ordered items/anchor asset at step 1906 with offers/additional electronic assets that are based on/pairing with previously ordered items/transaction data/anchor items at step 1908. The pairing of the additional electronic assets, offers in Walkers is based on the anchor asset, transaction/ordered items in Walker.
Choi teaches on paragraph 0089 selecting ads based on ad targeting objectives as described above but selects creatives from within an ad collection based on the capabilities of the device environment to which the ad is to be served. These capabilities criteria can include any characteristic of the target device environment that is available to the application into which the ad is to be served; these capabilities can include but are not limited to: screen size and color depth; number and type of screens.
Reichert teaches paragraph 0003 for the presentation control system can analyze the captured portion of the content item (and any additional information) and compare the received portion of content to reference data that is tuned for optimal display. The presentation control system can then provide instruction to modify display configuration settings on the presentation device.
Article, titled “ Evaluation of User Reputation on YouTube” teaches determining the quality of related contents using this new social network. Based on this observation, we introduce a user evaluation algorithm for user-generated video sharing website such as YouTube.
JP 2008193431 (A) teaches PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To prevent expiration of viewing period of a desired content, and to recommend a current available content. ;SOLUTION: A content information acquiring section 104 acquires the information about all distributable contents. A viewable time calculating section 105 calculates a viewable time for each of the contents from the content information and the present time, and generates list information in which the contents are sorted in the ascending order of viewable time. A priority determining section 107 selects the information of contents whose viewable time is lower than a threshold value from the list information. A determination section 108 determines whether or not each the content can be reproduced on the basis of the viewable time of the content information selected by the priority determining section 107 and the total reproducing time of all the contents determined to be reproducible together with reproduction time. A recommendation screen generating section 110 generates a recommendation screen for highlighting the content determined to be reproducible by the determination section 108.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the specification and the claims pertain to technological improvement to the prior art technical problems and improving the efficiency and performance of the computer system and includes additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Examiner wants to point out that the specification as filed discloses on paragraph 0004, solving the problem of “ Content providers lack a mechanism for getting assets from their mixed-multimedia asset libraries in front of users and to present the mixed-multimedia assets to users in meaningful and engaging ways“, which is not a technical problem but a business related problem, and provides a business related solution of “creating a list of multimedia assets from a plurality of multimedia assets for presentation to a user based on an anchor multimedia asset that is consumed by the user”. The claims discloses the additional elements of “display device”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media”, “an apparatus comprising one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions”, and are recited at a high level of generality, such that they amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. They are no more than a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant further compares the invention of claims to the patent- eligible invention of McRO, Inc. V. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), arguing “claims that are directed to a specific technological improvement, and not merely a genera; purpose computer implementation of an abstract idea, are patent-eligible. The court in MCRO found the claims eligible because the specification explained how the specific rules automated a task that previously could not be automated, thereby improving computer animation technology”. The Examiner wants to point out that there is a difference between merely automating a known manual process and automating a process that is not known to have been previously performed manually. The claimed invention of McRO, however, included limited rules with a structure reflecting "a specific implementation not demonstrated as that which 'any [animator] engaged in the search for [an automation process] would likely have utilized." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316 (citing Myriad, 569 U.S. at 595-96) (alterations in original). In contrast, the method of claim 1, recites steps worded broadly enough to mirror the processes a human would go through, creating a list of multimedia assets, estimating an expected user viewing length, selecting, and creating an ordered playlist. The claims do not provide a technical solution to a technical problem and do not improve the performance of the computing system.
The Double Patenting rejections have been withdrawn, the claims as amended do not overlap in scope and are thus not conflicting patent/applications as US Patent no. 11,763,173, 11,562,259 and co-pending application 18/231,642.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/RAQUEL ALVAREZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights