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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing collecting, and analyzing and generically applying a resolution without significantly more.
The following is an analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG):
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis
Step 1: Do the Claims Specify a Statutory Category?
Claims 1-7, describe a method, claims 8-14 describe a system, and claims 15-20 describe a non-transitory computer-readable medium, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 1-7
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 1 recites collecting data, analyzing said data, determining patterns of said data, determining/predicting potential problems based on the patterns, generating and transmitting a notification to a user comprising solutions for addressing the problems. The limitations describe processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., use of a processor, generic computer, or a generic artificial intelligence model). That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The limitations involve making evaluations of the collected information in order to determine a pattern are describing an observation, evaluation, and manipulation of data. Such an observation, evaluation, and manipulation of data can be performed by a human using a computer as a tool and recites a mental process.
The applicant has amended the claims to recite the language of generating and transmitting a notification to the user comprising one or more interactive solutions for addressing the predicted potential problems. The examiner interprets as using a computer environment to achieve a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C 2 :
Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that "with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper". 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 2 and 7 further describe types of data being collected.
Claim 3 recites further data manipulation based on analyzed data.
Claim 4 recites further pattern matching of data.
Claim 5 recites listing a result based on the analyzed data.
Claim 6 recites presenting said results to a person.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the practical performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s). The processor cited in the claim is described at a high level of generality such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 1 also recites data collection, analysis, and removing data from a media content. These limitations describe insignificant extra-solution activity pertaining to mere data gathering, data analysis, and generically applying a resolution to an identified problem, respectively, without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. As such, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
Claim 1 also recites using a “artificial intelligence model” without any specification of details pertaining to how the model is trained or performs. Such details would include description of specific algorithms used in training the model. As currently written, the limitations in the amended claims describe data and evaluations performed on the data. The evaluations describe concepts that can be performed by a human (i.e., as a mental process and/or by using pen/paper) and are therefore directed to the identified judicial exception. There is no indication that the combination of elements solves a technological problem other than merely taking advantage of the inherent advantages of using existing artificial intelligence technology (i.e., machine learning) in its ordinary, off-the-shelf capacity to apply the identified judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general purpose processor or other generic computer component is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s).
Claims 2-7 describe further details regarding the data collection and analysis. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application.
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 identified abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
In the instant case, as detailed in the analysis for Step 2A-Prong 2, claim 1 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea. The computer and artificial intelligence model recited in the claim describe a generic computer and/or computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The limitations pertaining to gathering of object information, analyzing data, and generically applying a resolution to an identified problem describe insignificant extra-solution activity and are written at a high level in a generic manner without providing any details regarding a specific problem being solved or specific remedial actions being taken. Therefore, these limitations recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim.
The applicant has amended the claims to recite the language of generating and transmitting a notification to the user comprising one or more interactive solutions for addressing the predicted potential problems. The examiner interprets this as merely providing a notification with information of possible solutions, but not actually performing any remediation. As such, this limitation recites no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 8-14
Claims 8-14 contain limitations for a system which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-7, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1, Step 2A – Prong 2, and Step 2B for claims 8-14 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-7.
In light of the above, the limitations in claims 8-14 recite and are directed to an abstract idea and recite no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the identified abstract ideas(s). Claims 8-14 are therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2 Analysis for Claims 15-20
Claims 15-20 contain limitations for a non-transitory computer-readable medium which are similar to the limitations for the methods specified in claims 1-7, respectively. As such, the analysis under Step 2A – Prong 1 and Step 2A – Prong 2 for claims 15-20 is similar to that presented above for claims 1-7.
Step 2B: Do the Claims Provide an Inventive Concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 contains additional elements which require evaluation as to whether they provide an inventive concept to the identified abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites the additional elements of a “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by one or more processors of a computer system for performing a method…” The computer-readable medium and processors cited in the claim describe generic computer components at a high level and do not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception. The enabling of the processors to troubleshoot a performance problem recites intended use of the claimed limitations and does not represent “significantly more” than the identified judicial exception.
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) 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orzell et al. U. S. Patent 8,935,581 in view of Wollny et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication US2023/0161662A1.
As per claim 1, Orzell teaches a computer-implemented method for adaptive media content management, the method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, error logs from a plurality of user devices (column 2, lines 5-13, wherein the collected data set is compared to a second set to see if errors are present, the examiner interprets this as an error log), wherein the error logs were generated in relation to a playback of a first set of media content (column 1, lines 56-63); analyzing, by the one or more processors executing an artificial intelligence model, the received error logs (column 7, lines 1-2, wherein a SVM is a type of AI); determining, by the one or more processors, one or more patterns of problematic data from the error logs; predicting, by the artificial intelligence model, potential problems associated with a second set of media content based on the one or more patterns (column 9, lines 11-34, wherein percentages of users with the same feedback correspond to a pattern during various content portions). Wollny teaches in response to the predicted potential problems, generating and transmitting, by the one or more processors, a notification to a user of a user device of the plurality of user devices via a graphical user interface, wherein the notification includes one or more user interactive solutions for addressing the predicted potential problems (¶ 0009). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of Wollny in the process of Orzell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the process of Wollny in the process of Orzell because using the process of Wollny would yield the predictable result of providing remediation of a predicted fault in a computing system.
As per claim 2, Orzell teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the error logs are generated when crashes, instability, or malfunctioning occurs (column 4, lines 9-15).
As per claim 3, Orzell teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising modifying assets or features corresponding to the potential problems (column 7, lines 3-35; column 4, liens 46-58).
As per claim 4, Orzell teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining one or more stable patterns of data within the assets or the features (column 7, lines 30-35).
As per claim 5, Orzell teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising increasing a priority of the media content containing the stable patterns of data using a media content recommendation system (column 7, lines 30-35, wherein non-error content is not removed/replaced while error data is removed/replaced, which is interpreted as non-error being given priority for use over an error content. Clarification of “increasing a priority” would be beneficial).
As per claim 6, Orzell teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising notifying viewers of the second set of media content of the potential problems (column 7, lines 3-5; column 4, lines 38-42).
As per claim 8, Orzell teaches a system for adaptive media content management, the system comprising: memory: and one or more processors configured to: receive error logs from a plurality of user devices, wherein the error logs were generated in relation to a playback of a first set of media content; analyze, using an artificial intelligence model, the received error logs; determine one or more patterns of problematic data from the error logs; predict, by the artificial intelligence model, potential problems associated with a second set of media content based on the one or more patterns (column 2, lines 5-13; column 1, lines 56-63; column 7, lines 1-35; column 9, lines 11-41, see claim 1). Wollny teaches in response to the predicted potential problems, generating and transmitting, by the one or more processors, a notification to a user of a user device of the plurality of user devices via a graphical user interface, wherein the notification includes one or more user interactive solutions for addressing the predicted potential problems (¶ 0009). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of Wollny in the process of Orzell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the process of Wollny in the process of Orzell because using the process of Wollny would yield the predictable result of providing remediation of a predicted fault in a computing system.
As per claim 9, Orzell teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the error logs are generated when crashes, instability, or malfunctioning occurs (column 4, lines 9-15).
As per claim 10, Orzell teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to modify assets or features corresponding to the potential problems (column 7, lines 3-35; column 4, lines 46-58).
As per claim 11, Orzell teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine one or more stable patterns of data within the assets or the features (column 7, lines 30-35).
As per claim 12, Orzell teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to increase a priority of the media content containing the stable patterns of data using a media content recommendation system (column 7, lines 30-35).
As per claim 13, Orzell teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to notify viewers of the second set of media content of the potential problems (column 7, lines 3-5; column 4, lines 38-42).
As per claim 15, Orzell teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executable by one or more processors for performing a method of adaptive media content management, the method comprising: receiving error logs from a plurality of user devices, wherein the error logs were generated in relation to a playback of a first set of media content; analyzing, using an artificial intelligence model, the received error logs; determining one or more patterns of problematic data from the error logs; predicting, by the artificial intelligence model, potential problems associated with a second set of media content based on the one or more patterns (column 2, lines 5-13; column 1, lines 56-63; column 7, lines 1-35; column 9, lines 11-41, see claim 1). Wollny teaches in response to the predicted potential problems, generating and transmitting, by the one or more processors, a notification to a user of a user device of the plurality of user devices via a graphical user interface, wherein the notification includes one or more user interactive solutions for addressing the predicted potential problems (¶ 0009). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of Wollny in the process of Orzell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the process of Wollny in the process of Orzell because using the process of Wollny would yield the predictable result of providing remediation of a predicted fault in a computing system.
As per claim 16, Orzell teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the error logs are generated when crashes, instability, or malfunctioning occurs (column 4, lines 9-15).
As per claim 17, Orzell teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the method further comprises modifying assets or features corresponding to the potential problems (column 7, lines 3-35; column 4, lines 46-58).
As per claim 18, Orzell teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the method further comprises determining one or more stable patterns of data within the assets or the features (column 7, lines 30-35).
As per claim 19, Orzell teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the method further comprises increasing a priority of the media content containing the stable patterns of data using a media content recommendation system (column 7, lines 30-35).
As per claim 20, Orzell teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the method further comprises notifying viewers of the second set of media content of the potential problems (column 7, lines 3-5; column 4, lines 38-42).
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) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orzell in view of Wollny in view of Lopatecki et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication US2011/0029666A1.
As per claim 7, Orzell teaches the method of claim 1. Lopatecki teaches wherein the error logs include information related to a content identifier of the media content and a timestamp recorded when one or more errors occurred (¶ 0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of Lopatecki in the process of Orzell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the process of Lopatecki in the process of Orzell because using the process of Lopatecki would have yielded the predictable result of knowing what time the user interacted with a playback, an explicit desire of Orzell.
As per claim 14, Orzell teaches the system of claim 8. Lopatecki teaches wherein the error logs include information related to a content identifier of the media content and a timestamp recorded when one or more errors occurred (¶ 0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the process of Lopatecki in the process of Orzell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the process of Lopatecki in the process of Orzell because using the process of Lopatecki would have yielded the predictable result of knowing what time the user interacted with a playback, an explicit desire of Orzell.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments/amendments, see Remarks, filed 9/26/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, 15 under Orzell have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Orzell in view of Wollny.
8. Applicant's arguments, pertaining to the USC 101 rejection, filed 9/26/25 have beenfully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has amended and has argued the new limitations overcome the rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant has argued the limitations put the invention into a practical application. As stated in the rejection, the examiner interprets the new language as merely providing a notification with information of possible solutions, but not actually performing any remediation. As such, this limitation recites no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas defined in the claim. Moreover, without citing a particular error and corresponding particular solution, the possible solutions, even if executed, is interpreted as a general solution and would fall under the “apply it” section of the MPEP 2106.04(d)I. Suggested claim language to transform/remediate the user device from a particular problem would be beneficial.
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 CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571)272-3655. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S MCCARTHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113