DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
No amendments were made
Claims 1-20 are presently pending.
Applicant's arguments filed 21 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Claims 1 and 15 do not recite an abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A (see Remarks, pgs. 7-9), the Examiner disagrees. Primarily, Applicant argues that the limitations ‘cannot practically be performed in the human mind’, arguing that the receiving and outputting steps of Claims 1 and 15 cannot be performed in the human mind due to the recitation that said steps are performed ‘via a user interface’ as ‘requir[ing] interactions with specialized equipment’ (see Remarks, pg. 8). It is noted that the specific elements that are considered to be directed toward abstract ideas are the elements of ‘receiving…an indication of a selection of a content by a user” and “outputting…the accessibility score”, which are in part limitations that may comprise a mental process and methods of organizing activity as the limitations are directed toward actions which at least in part occur mentally (i.e., a human process the received indication, and/or determining which accessibility score to output) in conjunction with human activities of being able to communicate with others (i.e., a person may be told by their friend a movie they would like to see, and may inform said friend of accessibility information associated with said movie). It is noted that Claims 8 and 15 respectively additionally recite steps of ‘determining…a plurality of features’, ‘training…a prediction model’, and ‘determining…an accessibility score’ which remain directed toward evaluative steps which may be performed mentally by a person. As such, the Claims as presently presented still recite abstract ideas.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the Claim 8 does not recite an abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A (see Remarks, pgs. 9-12), the Examiner disagrees. Applicant points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(1)’s example (vii) as support that training a prediction model does not recite an abstract idea. Examiner draws attention to the July 2024 SME AI examples 47-49 on the USPTO SME webpage (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf). Claim 8 is most similar to Claim 2 of Example 47, where no details of how the prediction model operates or how final detection/determinations are made. Rather, the claim merely recites determination of data to feed to the model (where training systems implicitly require input/output pairs of data to know what is expected to be identified/detected). As mentioned previously as well, even the Specification describes the prediction model as possibly encompassing ‘logistic regression algorithms’ or ‘linear regression algorithms’ (see instant Specification [0046]). Thus, BRI in light of the background, the claimed predictions models are mathematical calculations. As such, Claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity (see Remarks, pgs. 12-13), the Examiner disagrees. Applicant points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) arguing that the claims are “not directed to the enumerated sub-grouping of methods of organizing human activity” and argues the claims do not fall under any of the examples of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see Remarks, pg. 13). The Claims (for at least Claims 1 and 15) at present are directed to receiving a request/selection of content, and providing information (specifically the recited accessibility score) responsive to the request. This is commensurate in scope with the example give in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C):
“Another example of a claim reciting social activities is Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue was the social activity of "’providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity.’" 896 F.3d at 1344, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (citing Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 193 F. Supp.3d 1184, 1188 (W.D. 2014))… The Federal Circuit concluded that "[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea," observing that the district court "pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention." 896 F.3d at 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d at 1559”
Here, it is clear that the scope of providing information to another person (i.e., the recited accessibility score) would reasonably fit under the concept of social activities covered by the sub-group of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between people.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A (see Remarks, pgs. 14-19), the Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 8 and 15) recite the additional elements that the ‘receiving’ and ‘outputting...an accessibility score’ steps are performed a computing device via a user interface. However, such limitations fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are so broadly recited to amount to use of a general computing device (such as a cellphone) for receiving and transmitting/outputting information. In such an instance, the computing device is merely a medium through which the pertinent information is conveyed and does not materially affect or transform (where computing devices, such as cellphones, almost universally possess interfaces for inputting and outputting data). See also MPEP 2106.04 (III)(C). Additionally, Claim 1’s recitation of ‘causing, via the user interface, output of the content item’ results in being merely an extra-solution activity of providing/receiving some requested content that does not provide sufficient showing of improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). It cannot be said that the manner in which the additional limitations improve the computer itself as the computing device with user interface merely receives and outputs data that may (as presently recited) be merely input by a human operator. It cannot be said that the judicial exception is implemented with a particular machine or manufacture as the additional limitations merely broadly recite ‘a computing device’ and ‘a user interface’, which is noted above may cover nearly every generic computer. It cannot be said that the computing device/user interface effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article as no real article or machine is changed. In contrast to Example 37 from the Revised 2019 PEG examples, wherein the GUI in question was actively altered (i.e., the GUI icons are repositioned), the interface merely takes in some input query and outputs a result of the mental evaluation. As such, it cannot be said that such limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). It is further noted that the above-mentioned additional limitations fail to overcome Step 2B, as the computing device and user interface are recited at such a high level to amount to well-known, routine and conventional computers (where computers with I/O elements have been and are widely used to convey and enter in information for transmission). As such, the claims as recited are directed toward an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 claims recite the concept of evaluating a content item and making a judgment of an accessibility score and providing such a score to a user, which constitutes a Mental Process and/or a method of Organizing Human Activity . Following the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines, we analyze the claims:
STEP 1: IS THE CLAIM TO A PROCESS, MACHINE, MANUFACTURE, OR COMPOSITION OF MATTER?
YES. Claims 1-20 are all directed toward processes.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE: DOES THE CLAIM RECITE AN ABSTRACT IDEA, LAW OF NATURE, OR NATURAL PHENOMENON?
YES. Claim 1 recites “receiving…one or more user inputs indicating of a selection of a content item by a user…” and “outputting an indication of an accessibility score associated with the content item…” which amount to activities that could reasonably performed by a human. For example, a person may be told by their friend John that they are interested in viewing the movie “Top Gun” (i.e., receiving an indication of selection of a content item, and responsively, may tell John verbally or in written form an accessibility score associated with “Top Gun” (i.e., output an indication of accessibility).
Claim 5 recites “determining…based on the plurality of features of the content item, the accessibility score for the content item” which amounts of an evaluative step that could be performed in a human mind.
Claim 8 recites: “determining…a plurality of features of each content item of a plurality of content items”, “training, based on an accessibility score for each content item of the plurality of content items, and based on the plurality of features of each content item of the plurality of content items, a prediction model” and “outputting the prediction model, and causing the prediction model to generate, for at least one user associated with the disability, an accessibility score” which are steps that may be performed mentally in a human mind and/or with aid of pen and paper. Additionally, it is noted that ‘prediction model’ is described as a large variety of alternative embodiments, including ‘logistic regression algorithms’ and/or ‘linear regression algorithms’ which may comprise application of mathematical equations.
Claim 11 recites: “receiving…a selection of the content item” and “sending…an indication of the selection of the content item” which may amount to activities that could reasonably be performed by a human (similar as the limitations of Claim 1 above).
Claim 12 recites: “determining…the accessibility score for the content item”, “sending the accessibility score for the content item”, and “causing the accessibility score for the content item to be output” which comprise human activities of evaluation of data and speaking/writing down the results of said evaluation.
Claim 15 recites: “determining…based on a plurality of features of a content item, an accessibility score for the content item”, “receiving an indication of a selection of the content item by a user”, and “based on the indication of the selection, outputting … the accessibility score [to the] user”, which amount to activities that could be performed by a human (see similar to Claims 1 and 5 above).
Claim 19 recites: “determining, based on the first data, the plurality of features, wherein each content item of the plurality of content items comprises at least one feature of the plurality of features” and “training, based on the first data, a prediction model, wherein the prediction model is configured to output accessibility scores for content items” which comprise steps that may be performed mentally in the human mind and/or with pen and paper (see similar to Claim 8 above).
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO: DOES THE CLAIM RECITE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS THAT INTEGRATE THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION?
NO. Claim 1 (and similarly Claims 8 and 15) recites the receiving step performed “by a computing device via a user interface”, however, the limitation is recited at such a high level of generality to amount to merely adding the words ‘apply it’ to merely implement the abstract idea on or with a computer. Additionally Claim 1 recites: “causing, via the user interface, output of the content item”. However, such a limitation is not functionally tied to any of the features of providing the accessibility score (i.e., the disclosed inventive concept), and results in being merely an extra-solution activity of providing/receiving some requested content that does not provide sufficient showing of improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Additionally, Claim 1 specifies “wherein the content item comprises a plurality of features”, “wherein the user is associated with a disability”, and “wherein the accessibility score is based on the plurality of features of the content item being perceptible to the user with the disability”. However, these limitations merely define data that may be analyzed and evaluated by a human. As such, the additional elements cannot be said to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improving the functioning of a computer or technical field, nor of applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine.
Claims 2, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-18, and 20 predominantly further define the data is to be received and evaluated by the claims, as such merely describe the type of data that can be mentally evaluated and judged by a human.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the indication of the selection of the content item comprises an indication of the user scrolling over one or more of a description for the content item or an identifier for the content item with a program guide”, but the limitations are written so broadly as to encompass a human observing another user interacting with a commonly viewed television.
Claim 8 recites ‘wherein the content item is not among the plurality of training content items’, but such a limitation merely recite that the trained model is utilized on some previously untrained content item, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improving the functioning of the computer or field, but amounts to testing the trained model (e.g., math problem sets that were not part of the examples used to teach a person how to solve an algebraic equation, etc.)
STEP 2B: DOES THE CLAIM RECITE ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS THAT AMOUNT TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION?
No. The additional elements (see Step 2A, Prong Two analysis above) fail to amount to significantly more as they amount at best to adding the words ‘apply it’ to merely implement the abstract idea on or with a computer, and largely amount to communication via computers (e.g., texting) or general receiving/transmitting of data over a network. Furthermore, the limitations are recited at a high level of generality that recite well-understood, routine, and conventional utilization of computing devices to deliver data which have been recognized by the courts as being well-understand, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)(i) which points that the courts have recognized receiving/transmitting data over a network to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner).
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 WILLIAM J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2767. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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 J KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights