DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to the amendment filed 12/15/2025.
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 of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant submits on page 9 of the remarks that the claims do not recite a mental process. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG), if a claim limitation covers observations or evaluations then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant submits on page 10 of the remarks that the claims are integrated into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a matter that imposes meaningful limit to the judicial exception.
Applicant submits on page 12 of the remarks that the claims ordered combination supplies an inventive concept. Examiner notes that because the specification describes the additional elements in general terms without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of Applicant’s’ specification, as cited in the instant office action. See Berkheimer Memo. The claim does not provide an inventive concept because the claim, in essence, merely recites various computer-based elements along with no more than mere instructions to implement the identified abstract idea using the computer-based elements.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 16 and 19) are directed, in part, to a method, a system and a non-transitory computer-readable medium for generating custom links and custom content. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-15 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process, claims 16-18 are directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine and claims 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to receiving a request to generate a custom link associated with generating a customized content item player for playing a content item; receiving settings associated with the custom link, the settings controlling how the customized content item player will play the content item when the custom link is activated; wherein the customized content item player is configured to analyze engagement metrics during a viewing session, the engagement metrics indicate different engagement levels for respective viewing segments; receiving a request to access the custom link; in response to the request to access the custom link, providing the content item and the customized content item player based on the settings in a first session, wherein the customized content item player analyzes the engagement metrics to calculate engagement scores for the respective viewing segments and causing to generate a graphical display that updates to reflect changes in the engagement levels for the respective viewing segments. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: custom link, item player, graphical display, system, processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figure 1 and 11 and related text and [0148-0152] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “FIG. 11 shows an example of computing system 1100, which can be for example any computing device making up content management system 102 or client devices 134, or any component thereof in which the components of the system are in communication with each other using connection 1102. Connection 1102 can be a physical connection via a bus, or a direct connection into processor 1104, such as in a chipset architecture. Connection 1102 can also be a virtual connection, networked connection, or logical connection. In some embodiments, computing system 1100 is a distributed system in which the functions described in this disclosure can be distributed within a datacenter, multiple data centers, a peer network, etc. In some embodiments, one or more of the described system components represents many such components each performing some or all of the function for which the component is described. In some embodiments, the components can be physical or virtual devices. Example computing system 1100 includes at least one processing unit (CPU or processor) 1104 and connection 1102 that couples various system components including system memory 11088, such as read-only memory (ROM) 1110 and random access memory (RAM) 1112 to processor 1104. Computing system 1100 can include a cache of high-speed memory 1108 connected directly with, in close proximity to, or integrated as part of processor 1104. Processor 1104 can include any general purpose processor and a hardware service or software service, such as services 1106, 1118, and 1120 stored in storage device 1114, configured to control processor 1104 as well as a special-purpose processor where software instructions are incorporated into the actual processor design. Processor 1104 may essentially be a completely self-contained computing system, containing multiple cores or processors, a bus, memory controller, cache, etc. A multi-core processor may be symmetric or asymmetric. To enable user interaction, computing system 1100 includes an input device 1126, which can represent any number of input mechanisms, such as a microphone for speech, a touch-sensitive screen for gesture or graphical input, keyboard, mouse, motion input, speech, etc. Computing system 1100 can also include output device 1122, which can be one or more of a number of output mechanisms known to those of skill in the art.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above. Although, the prior art made of record (Kol) discloses generating custom links and controlling content display, the prior art does not specifically disclose the sequence of steps as recited in the claims including “…wherein the customized content item player is configured to analyze engagement metrics during a viewing session, the engagement metrics indicate different engagement levels for respective viewing segments; wherein the customized content item player analyzes the engagement metrics to calculate engagement scores for the respective viewing segments and causing to generate a graphical display that updates to reflect changes in the engagement levels for the respective viewing segments…”
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
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 FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625