DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the Amendment filed 20 June 2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-20 are currently pending. In the Amendment filed 20 June 2025, claims 1, 12 and 18 are amended and claims 4 and 15 are cancelled. This action is Final.
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 .
Priority
It is acknowledged that this application is a continuation of Application 16/607,698, filed on 23 October 2019, which is a 371 of PCT/US2018/023308 filed 20 March 2018 and also has a provisional 62/490,506 filed 26 April 2017.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed 16 September 2024 has been reviewed and accepted.
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 1-3, 5-9, 11-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Determining whether claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 involves a two-step analysis. Step 1 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to the statutory categories of invention. Step 2 requires a determination of whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2 is divided into two prongs, with the first prong having a part 1 and part 2. See MPEP 2106.
Claim 1 recites pairing, for a playlist, media content items from a plurality of media content items based on a plurality of interstitials, wherein each resulting pair of media content items is related to at least one of the plurality of interstitials; and arranging resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with interstitials that are each related to media content items in a respective pair of the resulting pairs, wherein each interstitial is inserted between a first media content item and a second media content item in the respective pair of the resulting pairs in the playlist, wherein arranging the resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with the interstitials comprises traversing a longest path of nodes on a graph, wherein the nodes on the graph comprise each media content item in the resulting pairs of media content items and each interstitial.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, these limitations depict the manual creation of a playlist. A person can look at a catalog of songs and pair songs that have related metadata. The person can then look at the catalog of interstitials (e.g., an advertisement or trivia question) and match the metadata of the songs to a interstitial. The person can follow a path of nodes on a graph traversing the longest path to arrange the media. Furthermore, it is noted that paragraph [0066], line 1 of Applicant’s published specification states that playlists may be curated manually. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of providing, via a content sharing platform, the playlist for consumption. The element of providing the playlist for consumption is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the element is outputting information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). The element of via a content sharing platform is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Also, the element of via a content sharing platform is merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 sharing platform is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of providing the playlist) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Paragraph [0057] of Applicant’s published specification gives examples of the generic computer components that can represent a content sharing platform. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional element of providing, via a content sharing platform, the playlist for consumption. The element of providing the playlist for consumption is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the element is outputting information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. The element of via a content sharing platform is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Also, the element of via a content sharing platform is merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 sharing platform is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of providing the playlist) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Paragraph [0057] of Applicant’s published specification gives examples of the generic computer components that can represent a content sharing platform. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites pairing, for a playlist, media content items from a plurality of media content items based on a plurality of interstitials, wherein each resulting pair of media content items is related to at least one of the plurality of interstitials; and arranging resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with interstitials that are each related to media content items in a respective pair of the resulting pairs, wherein each interstitial is inserted between a first media content item and a second media content item in the respective pair of the resulting pairs in the playlist, wherein arranging the resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with the interstitials comprises traversing a longest path on a graph, wherein the nodes on the graph comprise each media content item in the resulting pairs of the media content items and each interstitial.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, these limitations depict the manual creation of a playlist. A person can look at a catalog of songs and pair songs that have related metadata. The person can then look at the catalog of interstitials (e.g., an advertisement or trivia question) and match the metadata of the songs to a interstitial. The person can follow a path of nodes on a graph traversing the longest path to arrange the media. Furthermore, it is noted that paragraph [0066], line 1 of Applicant’s published specification states that playlists may be curated manually. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of providing, via a content sharing platform, the playlist for consumption. The element of providing the playlist for consumption is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the element is outputting information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). The element of via a content sharing platform is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Also, the element of via a content sharing platform is merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 sharing platform is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of providing the playlist) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Paragraph [0057] of Applicant’s published specification gives examples of the generic computer components that can represent a content sharing platform. Also, the processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of pairing and arranging) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional element of providing, via a content sharing platform, the playlist for consumption. The element of providing the playlist for consumption is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the element is outputting information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. The element of via a content sharing platform is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Also, the element of via a content sharing platform is merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 sharing platform is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of providing the playlist) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Paragraph [0057] of Applicant’s published specification gives examples of the generic computer components that can represent a content sharing platform. Also, the processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of pairing and arranging) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 recites pairing, for a playlist, media content items from a plurality of media content items based on a plurality of interstitials, wherein each resulting pair of media content items is related to at least one of the plurality of interstitials; and arranging resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with interstitials that are each related to media content items in a respective pair of the resulting pairs, wherein each interstitial is inserted between a first media content item and a second media content item in the respective pair of the resulting pairs in the playlist, wherein arranging the resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with the interstitials comprises traversing a longest path on a graph, wherein the nodes on the graph comprise each media content item in the resulting pairs of the media content items and each interstitial.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 1, claims are analyzed to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Pursuant to MPEP 2106, claims are deemed to be directed to an abstract idea if, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they fall within one of the enumerated categories of (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
The limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, these limitations depict the manual creation of a playlist. A person can look at a catalog of songs and pair songs that have related metadata. The person can then look at the catalog of interstitials (e.g., an advertisement or trivia question) and match the metadata of the songs to a interstitial. The person can follow a path of nodes on a graph traversing the longest path to arrange the media. Furthermore, it is noted that paragraph [0066], line 1 of Applicant’s published specification states that playlists may be curated manually. If limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2A, part 2, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). One way to determine integration into a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of providing, via a content sharing platform, the playlist for consumption. The element of providing the playlist for consumption is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the element is outputting information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). The element of via a content sharing platform is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Also, the element of via a content sharing platform is merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 sharing platform is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of providing the playlist) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Paragraph [0057] of Applicant’s published specification gives examples of the generic computer components that can represent a content sharing platform. Also, the processing device and medium are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of pairing and arranging) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Pursuant to Step 2B, claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional element of providing, via a content sharing platform, the playlist for consumption. The element of providing the playlist for consumption is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) since the element is outputting information. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation is directed to IESA of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, performing repetitive calculations, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, recording a customer’s order, shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, presenting offers and gathering statistics, determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, which is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II and the Berkheimer Memo. The element of via a content sharing platform is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Also, the element of via a content sharing platform is merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 sharing platform is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer function of providing the playlist) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Paragraph [0057] of Applicant’s published specification gives examples of the generic computer components that can represent a content sharing platform. Also, the processing device and medium are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of pairing and arranging) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 14, 16-17, 19 and 20 are directed to the abstract idea of “Mental Processes.” Each claim fails to provide any additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2008/0056673 to Morris (hereafter Morris) in view of US PGPub 2006/0112098 to Renshaw et al (hereafter Renshaw) in view of US PGPub 2019/0171669 to Patankar et al (hereafter Patankar) in view of US PGPub 2014/0310353 to Schneider et al (hereafter Schneider).
Referring to claim 1, Morris discloses a method, comprising:
pairing, for a playlist, media content items a plurality of media content items [content elements Cm] based on a plurality of interstitials [advertisements Ad], wherein each resulting pair of media content items is related to at least one of the plurality of interstitials (see [0024]-[0028] - Group the recorded content elements Cm with the same genre or a similar description base on in the information recorded in the step 230. Insert an advertisement Ad from the recorded advertisements Ad according to their associated keywords.);
arranging resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with the interstitials that are each related to both media content items in a respective pair of the resulting pairs, wherein each interstitial is inserted between a first media content item [current added content element Cm] and a second media content item in the resulting pair of the resulting pairs in the playlist [the content element Cm that will be added following the ad break] in a respective pair of the resulting pairs in the playlist (see [0029] – The advertisements Ad is inserted based on the similarity of the associated keywords to the current added content element Cm and the content element Cm that will be added following the ad break.).
While Morris discloses arranging the resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with the interstitials, Morris fails to explicitly disclose the further limitation wherein arranging the resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with the interstitials comprises traversing a longest path of nodes on a graph, wherein the nodes on the graph comprise each media content item in the resulting pairs of media content items and each interstitial. Renshaw teaches generating a playlist using a “Music Mapper (see [0113]),” including the further limitation of wherein arranging the resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with the interstitials comprises traversing a path of nodes on a graph, wherein the nodes on the graph comprise each media content item in the resulting pairs of media content items and each interstitial [advertisement] (see [0048]; [0071]-[0073]; [0120]-[0126] – However, it should be understood that the techniques described herein are equally applicable to any media objects (including songs, videos, advertisements, etc.) whose relationships can be reduced to a sparse graph such as the music similarity graph.).
Morris and Renshaw are analogous art since they both teach the generation of a playlist. While Morris teaches arranging media items and interstitials into a playlist, Morris fails to teach traversing a graph. Renshaw teaches traversing a path to add content to a playlist. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to traverse a graph of the content of Morris in the manner taught by Renshaw to generate a playlist of media items and interstitials. One would have been motivated to do so in order to generate a playlist of content that are complementary to one another in the sense that the transition from one song to the next avoids abrupt transitions in theme or mood during playback (Renshaw: see [0066] and [0113]).
While the combination of Morris and Renshaw (hereafter Morris/Renshaw) teaches traversing a path, including a shortest path and a random path (see [0123]), Morris/Renshaw fails to explicitly teach traversing a longest path of the graph. Patankar teaches the creation of a graph of nodes, including the further limitation of traversing the longest path of nodes on a graph (see [0063] – The graph is queriable for network paths longest path.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to traverse the graph of Morris/Renshaw based on the longest path as taught by Patankar. One would have been motivated to do so since Morris/Renshaw can operate regardless of how the path is generated (Renshaw: see [0124]).
While the combination of Morris/Renshaw and Patankar (hereafter Morris/Renshaw/Patankar) teaches playing a playlist, Morris/Renshaw/Patankar fails to explicitly teach the further limitation of providing, via a content sharing platform, the playlist for consumption. Schneider teaches the generation of a playlist (see Fig 3, item 360 – Generate the playlist using the source content items), including the further limitation of providing, via a content sharing platform, the playlist for consumption (see Fig 3, item 370 and [0056] – Display a UI for the generated playlist originated by the selected entity on the homepage of the user on the content sharing platform.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate the playlist of Morris/Renshaw/Patankar in a content sharing platform setting and then provide that playlist for consumption in the manner taught by Schneider. One would have been motivated to do so to provide an automatic process to generate a playlist (Schneider: see [0005]).
Referring to claim 2, Morris/Renshaw/Patankar and Schneider (hereafter Morris/Renshaw/Patankar/Schneider) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein content of each interstitial provides a transition from the first media content item in the respective pair of the resulting pairs to the second media content item in the respective pair of the resulting pairs, to facilitate cohesiveness of content across the playlist (Morris: see [0029]).
Referring to claim 3, Morris/Renshaw/Patankar/Schneider discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the resulting pairs of media content items and the interstitials are arranged in the playlist based on a score of a frequency of occurrence of pairs of media content items having one or more identifiers that match one or more identifiers of one of the plurality of interstitials (Morris: see [0029] – The advertisements Ad is inserted based on the similarity of the associated keywords to the current added content element Cm and the content element Cm that will be added following the ad break).
Referring to claim 11, Morris/Renshaw/Patankar/Schneider discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of media content items comprises audio [songs of a music radio service] (Morris: see [0021]).
Referring to claim 12, Morris discloses a system comprising:
a memory device (see Fig 1); and
a processing device operatively coupled to the memory device (see Fig 1), the processing device to:
pairing, for a playlist, media content items a plurality of media content items [content elements Cm] based on a plurality of interstitials [advertisements Ad], wherein each resulting pair of media content items is related to at least one of the plurality of interstitials (see [0024]-[0028] - Group the recorded content elements Cm with the same genre or a similar description base on in the information recorded in the step 230. Insert an advertisement Ad from the recorded advertisements Ad according to their associated keywords.);
arranging resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with the interstitials that are each related to both media content items in a respective pair of the resulting pairs, wherein each interstitial is inserted between a first media content item [current added content element Cm] and a second media content item in the resulting pair of the resulting pairs in the playlist [the content element Cm that will be added following the ad break] in a respective pair of the resulting pairs in the playlist (see [0029] – The advertisements Ad is inserted based on the similarity of the associated keywords to the current added content element Cm and the content element Cm that will be added following the ad break.).
While Morris discloses arranging the resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with the interstitials, Morris fails to explicitly disclose the further limitation wherein arranging the resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with the interstitials comprises traversing a longest path of nodes on a graph, wherein the nodes on the graph comprise each media content item in the resulting pairs of media content items and each interstitial. Renshaw teaches generating a playlist using a “Music Mapper (see [0113]),” including the further limitation of wherein arranging the resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with the interstitials comprises traversing a path of nodes on a graph, wherein the nodes on the graph comprise each media content item in the resulting pairs of media content items and each interstitial [advertisement] (see [0048]; [0071]-[0073]; [0120]-[0126] – However, it should be understood that the techniques described herein are equally applicable to any media objects (including songs, videos, advertisements, etc.) whose relationships can be reduced to a sparse graph such as the music similarity graph.).
Morris and Renshaw are analogous art since they both teach the generation of a playlist. While Morris teaches arranging media items and interstitials into a playlist, Morris fails to teach traversing a graph. Renshaw teaches traversing a path to add content to a playlist. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to traverse a graph of the content of Morris in the manner taught by Renshaw to generate a playlist of media items and interstitials. One would have been motivated to do so in order to generate a playlist of content that are complementary to one another in the sense that the transition from one song to the next avoids abrupt transitions in theme or mood during playback (Renshaw: see [0066] and [0113]).
While the combination of Morris and Renshaw (hereafter Morris/Renshaw) teaches traversing a path, including a shortest path and a random path (see [0123]), Morris/Renshaw fails to explicitly teach traversing a longest path of the graph. Patankar teaches the creation of a graph of nodes, including the further limitation of traversing the longest path of nodes on a graph (see [0063] – The graph is queriable for network paths longest path.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to traverse the graph of Morris/Renshaw based on the longest path as taught by Patankar. One would have been motivated to do so since Morris/Renshaw can operate regardless of how the path is generated (Renshaw: see [0124]).
While the combination of Morris/Renshaw and Patankar (hereafter Morris/Renshaw/Patankar) teaches playing a playlist, Morris/Renshaw/Patankar fails to explicitly teach the further limitation of providing, via a content sharing platform, the playlist for consumption. Schneider teaches the generation of a playlist (see Fig 3, item 360 – Generate the playlist using the source content items), including the further limitation of providing, via a content sharing platform, the playlist for consumption (see Fig 3, item 370 and [0056] – Display a UI for the generated playlist originated by the selected entity on the homepage of the user on the content sharing platform.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate the playlist of Morris/Renshaw/Patankar in a content sharing platform setting and then provide that playlist for consumption in the manner taught by Schneider. One would have been motivated to do so to provide an automatic process to generate a playlist (Schneider: see [0005]).
Referring to claim 13, Morris/Renshaw/Patankar/Schneider discloses the system of claim 12, wherein content of each interstitial provides a transition from the first media content item in the respective pair of the resulting pairs to the second media content item in the respective pair of the resulting pairs, to facilitate cohesiveness of content across the playlist (Morris: see [0008] and [0029]).
Referring to claim 14, Morris/Renshaw/Patankar/Schneider discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the resulting pairs of media content items and the interstitials are arranged in the playlist based on a score of a frequency of occurrence of pairs of media content items having one or more identifiers that match one or more identifiers of one of the plurality of interstitials (Morris: see [0029] – The advertisements Ad is inserted based on the similarity of the associated keywords to the current added content element Cm and the content element Cm that will be added following the ad break).
Referring to claim 18, Morris discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when accessed by a processing device (see Fig 1), cause the processing device to perform:
pairing, for a playlist, media content items a plurality of media content items [content elements Cm] based on a plurality of interstitials [advertisements Ad], wherein each resulting pair of media content items is related to at least one of the plurality of interstitials (see [0024]-[0028] - Group the recorded content elements Cm with the same genre or a similar description base on in the information recorded in the step 230. Insert an advertisement Ad from the recorded advertisements Ad according to their associated keywords.);
arranging resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with the interstitials that are each related to both media content items in a respective pair of the resulting pairs, wherein each interstitial is inserted between a first media content item [current added content element Cm] and a second media content item in the resulting pair of the resulting pairs in the playlist [the content element Cm that will be added following the ad break] in a respective pair of the resulting pairs in the playlist (see [0029] – The advertisements Ad is inserted based on the similarity of the associated keywords to the current added content element Cm and the content element Cm that will be added following the ad break.).
While Morris discloses arranging the resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with the interstitials, Morris fails to explicitly disclose the further limitation wherein arranging the resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with the interstitials comprises traversing a longest path of nodes on a graph, wherein the nodes on the graph comprise each media content item in the resulting pairs of media content items and each interstitial. Renshaw teaches generating a playlist using a “Music Mapper (see [0113]),” including the further limitation of wherein arranging the resulting pairs of media content items in the playlist together with the interstitials comprises traversing a path of nodes on a graph, wherein the nodes on the graph comprise each media content item in the re