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 1/19/2026.
Claims 1-21 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). (MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-7 recite a series of steps, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., a process. Claims 8-21 describe tangible system components, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., machine or manufacture.
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:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, at least partially on user interaction data collected by a user a selected anchor media content item is to be rendered next to the user; selecting, by the one and based at least in part on pairwise comparisons with one or more features of the selected anchor media content item, one or more additional media content items from a plurality of media content items related to the selected anchor media content item, wherein the one or more features of the selected anchor media content item include a specific feature identifying whether the selected anchor media content item is a non-video file, wherein a similarity matrix comprising matrix values generated from the pairwise comparisons is used to select the one or more additional media content items for co-displaying with the anchor media content item on an image display of the user; generating, by arranging the anchor media content item and one or more additional media content items into the display page.
The limitations of determining, based at least partially on user interaction data collected, a selected anchor media content item is to be rendered next with the user computing device to the user; selecting, based at least in part on pairwise comparisons with one or more features of the selected anchor media content item, one or more additional media content items from a plurality of media content items related to the selected anchor media content item, wherein the one or more features of the selected anchor media content item include a specific feature identifying whether the selected anchor media content item is a non-video file, wherein a similarity matrix comprising matrix values generated from the pairwise comparisons is used to select the one or more additional media content items for co-displaying with the anchor media content item on an image display of the user, 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 “by one or more computing processors” (interpreted as computer(s)) nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by one or more computing processors” language, “determining” and “selecting”, “automatically designing”, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses actions that a human could perform; e.g., a human can look at media content and determine which are relevant.
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., “determining”, “selecting”, “automatically designing”, “generating” 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), but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting “by one or more computing processors” nothing in the claim elements disqualifies the steps from being commercial interactions including advertising. For example, but for the “by one or more computing processors” language, the steps of “determining”, “selecting”, “automatically designing” “generating” the context of this claim encompasses steps of determining media content that is related to user interaction, and then selecting additional media content that is related.
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.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite the same abstract idea as identified above and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 further narrow it.
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:
• one or more computing processors (claims 1, 8 and 15)
• one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (claims 8 and 15);
• generating, by the one or more computing processors, a computer display page by arranging the anchor media content item and one or more additional media content items into the computer display page (claims 1, 8 and 15)
Automatically designing a layout of a computer display (claims 1, 8 and 15)
• causing, by the one or more computer processors, the computer display page to be sent to the user computer device for display on the image display of the user computing device. (claims 1, 8 and 15)
The “one or more computing processors” and the “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors) 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 “determining” and “selecting” steps.
The additional elements of generating a computer display page by arranging the items into a display page and causing the computer display page to be sent to the user computer device for display, automatically designing a layout of a computer display 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 limitation “causing, by the one or more computer processors, the computer display page to be sent to the user computer device for display on the image display of the user computing device”, as seen above, this limitation has been interpreted as “apply it”. However, this limitation can be additionally interpreted as insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, this limitation alone and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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 “one or more computing processors”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”, “generating, by the one or more computing processors, a computer display page by arranging the anchor media content item and one or more additional media content items into the computer display page” and “causing, by the one or more computer processors, the computer display page to be sent to the user computer device for display on the image display of the user computing device”,” automatically designing a layout of a computer display “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 limitation “causing, by the one or more computer processors, the computer display page to be sent to the user computer device for display on the image display of the user computing device”; 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, this additional element does 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 1-21 are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipated double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,173.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 are allowable over prior art of record.
The invention pertains to: Content providers lacking 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.
The closest prior art of record:
The combination of Bernard, Ponte, Walker and Garvey do not disclose “similarity matrix comprising matrix values generated from the pairwise comparisons (with one or more features of the selected anchor media content item) is used to select the one or more additional media content items for co-displaying with the anchor media.
Bernard teaches selecting an anchor asset based on certainty that the anchor asset will be viewed, Ponte teaches displaying banner ads on pages that include content related to the banner ads, Walker teaches general comparison for providing offers on related previously ordered items and Garvey teaches similarity matrix or graph that determines how similar a particular instance of a seasonal period is with the other instances of the seasonal period, the combination of Barnard, Ponte, Walker and Garvey cannot be combined to teach, the claim limitations of: “similarity matrix comprising matrix values generated from the pairwise comparisons (with one or more features of the selected anchor media content item) is used to select the one or more additional media content items”
Other references of record:
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
The 101 rejections have been maintained. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to organizing human activities and that the limitations describe machine specific data processing and display control. The Examiner wants to point out that claims pertain to: determining media content that is related to user interactions and then selecting additional media content that is related by determining a selected anchor media content, performing a pairwise comparison, generating, using similarity matrix, designing a layout and generating and transmitting a display page. The claims under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a human can look at media content and determine, generate, design, transmit and display relevant content to the user, and under its broadest reasonable, covers performance of the limitation but for recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea, under 2A, prong One.
The additional elements of “by one or more computing processors” to perform the determining, generating, design, generating and transmitting are considered as apply it, as the claims invoke the computer as a tool to perform the determining, generating, designing, generating and transmitting steps without any technical improvement to the processor itself. The additional elements of using a processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as generic processors) 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 determining, generating, designing, generating and transmitting steps, under step 2A, prong Two.
The ordered combination of the elements do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as discussed above, using a processor recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as generic processors) and using the generic processors to perform the determining, generating, designing and transmitting steps are well-understood, routine and conventional and alone or in combination do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept, under step 2B. (MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity).
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection has been maintained, pending a Terminal Disclaimer.
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.
Point of contact
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