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 .
This action is in response to amendment and/or remarks filed on 03/02/2026. In the current amendments, claims 2 and 10 have been amended, claim 1 has been cancelled. Claims2-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
In response to amendments and/or remarks filed on 03/02/2026, the 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejections made in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn.
In response to amendments and/or remarks filed on 03/02/2026, the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections made in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant asserts that “The Examiner has alleged that the machine learning model and neural network are "generic computer components" performing "generic computer functions." Office Action, page 5. However, claim 2 as amended does not merely recite a generic neural network, it specifies that "the neural network is trained using page visit statistics as input and predicted interest as output." This specific training configuration, which defines both the input data type (page visit statistics) and the output (predicted interest), represents a particular technical implementation that constrains how the neural network is trained and operates, not a generic invocation of machine learning. Similarly, claim 10 as amended recites "predict, using a neural network, interest for a first program and at least one additional program based on evaluating engagement using a buzz algorithm, wherein the neural network is trained using page visit statistics as input and ratings as output" and includes the same time shift factor determination. These limitations specify a concrete technical system with particular inputs (page visit statistics), outputs (ratings), and algorithmic operations that cannot be performed as a mental process. The claims do not merely automate a mental process on a computer. Rather, they recite a specific technical architecture-a neural network trained with particular data types (page visit statistics as input, predicted interest or ratings as output) combined with a multi-step buzz algorithm including time shift factor calculation-that provides a technological improvement in the field of viewership prediction. This represents the type of specific technical improvement that integrates an alleged abstract idea into a practical application. In light of the above, Applicant submits that claims 2 and 10 are patent eligible for at least the above reasons. As dependent claims 3-9 depend from claim 2, they are therefore patent eligible for at least the same reasons as claim 2. As dependent claims 11-17 depend from claim 10, they are therefore patent eligible for at least the same reasons as claim 10. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”. (Remarks pg. 9-10)
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim as a whole is still directed to abstract idea mental process. While the newly added limitation does include wherein the neural network is trained using page visit statistics as input and predicted interest as output..” This training neural network limitation does not appear to be any improvement in technology. The claim limitation trained neural network is reciting generic computer components see MPEP 2106.05(f). The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Examiner suggested amending the claim to recite more training steps such that it isn’t generic in order to overcome the current 101 rejection.
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 2-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 2
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“A method for determining interest for a first program, ….predict interest for the first program and at least one additional program based on evaluating engagement using a buzz algorithm, wherein the buzz algorithm comprises: determining web site information, for the first program and the at least one additional program, by searching pre-determined web site sources for identifying information,”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
“the identifying information comprising: a database identifier, a program title, or any combination thereof; and counting how many times in a pre-determined time period the identifying information, for the first program and the at least one additional program, is mentioned in the pre-determined web site sources; and determining a time shift factor based on a difference between an earlier airing date of each of the first program and the at least one additional program and an evaluated air date; comparing the predicted interest of the first program and the at least one additional program wherein the at least one additional program is in a same time slot as the first program; and predicting a viewership based of the first program based on the predicted interest and the comparison.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “the method comprising: using a machine learning model to train a neural network using data sets to… wherein the neural network is trained using page visit statistics as input and predicted interest as output,”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does 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 practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the first program is a new program.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 4
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the pre-determined web sites sources comprise one or more sites.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 5
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the buzz algorithm is performed for different data gaps, the different data gaps comprising different time periods.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 6
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the different data gaps are compared to determine whether buzz related to the program is going up or going down.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 7
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the different data gaps are weighted”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of “computer-implemented… trained probabilistic model”, as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition, the claim limitation “receiving, from the first user, a prompt for predicted text” as explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The only remaining limitation of the claim “receiving, from the first user, a prompt for predicted text” constitute storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 8
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the identifying information further comprises a cast member.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claim 9
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein predicting the viewership is further based on a lead-in analysis comprising a third program airing directly prior to the first program.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) which can be performed by the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.).
Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d) I.), failing step 2A prong 2. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Regarding claims 10-17
Claim 10-17 recites analogous limitations to claims 2-9 and therefore is rejected on the same ground as claims 2-9.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 VAN C MANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00pm.
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, David Yi can be reached at 5712707519. 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.
/VAN C MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights