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 Status
Claims 1-6, 9-14, 16-19 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 9-14, 16-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-6, 9-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following is Examiner's analysis of the claimed invention under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG)
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 1 recites a machine (server), claim 10 recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 1 (and similar claim 10) recites “classify content into a plurality of content categories through clustering based on distances between vectors associated with respective pieces of content using a machine learning model; and performing clustering for the content categories based on the learned user feedback to update the content pools” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Clustering based on vector distance covers the performance of a mathematical calculation, therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 (and similar claim 10) recites “generate a plurality of content sequences each representing a sequence of interrelated content, based on the transition information, the content sequences including a hybrid content sequence representing a combination of content in a plurality of different content categories, wherein the hybrid content sequence is configured based on common content identified on a boundary of the plurality of different content categories based on the distances and the transition probability matrixes associated with the content” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Generating a content sequences based on distances and transition probabilities covers the performance of a mathematical relationship, therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 1 recites “a server comprising: communication circuitry, configured to communicate with at least one external electronic device; at least one processor comprising processing circuitry; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the server to” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 (and similar claim 10) recites “obtain content pool information for content pools generated by the clustering, each content pool including content corresponding to a respective content category; obtain transition information including transition probability matrixes probabilities related to transitions between content for each content category, each transition probability matrix representing probabilities being a probability of a user transitioning from one piece of content to another piece of content to provide a time-ordered sequence of content” which is mere necessary data gathering because all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output.
Claim 1 (and similar claim 10) recites “is generated to precisely target and recommend a content sequence corresponding to a preferred topic of the user” this “improvement” is provided by the judicial exception itself which according to the MPEP is not an improvement to technology.
Claim 1 (and similar claim 10) recites “provide, via the communication circuitry, the at least one external electronic device with at least a portion of the plurality of content sequences” which is insignificant-extra solution activity tangentially related to the invention. Adding a final step of proving content does not add a meaningful limitation to the judicial exception, and therefore, the additional element is insignificant-extra solution activity.
Claim 1 (and similar claim 10) recites “and obtain user feedback via the communication circuitry in response to the provision of the at least the portion of the plurality of content sequences, wherein the machine learning model is automatically trained, in real time, by learning the obtained user feedback” which is insignificant-extra solution activity tangentially related to the invention. Adding a final step of retraining a model based on user feedback does not add a meaningful limitation to the judicial exception, and therefore, the additional element is insignificant-extra solution activity.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
Claim 1 recites “and is generated to precisely target and recommend a content sequence corresponding to a preferred topic of the user” this “improvement” is provided by the judicial exception itself which according to the MPEP is not an improvement to technology. See the Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)).
Claim 1 recites “provide, via the communication circuitry, the at least one external electronic device with at least a portion of the plurality of content sequences” which is transmitting data over a network. The courts have determined transmitting data over a network is well‐understood, routine, and conventional functionality when claimed in a merely generic manner (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).
There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claims 1 and 10 are rejected as being directed to nonpatentable
subject matter under §101. This rejection applies equally to the dependent claims. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed briefly below:
Regarding claim 2
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (server).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the content sequences include a first content sequence in a first content category of the plurality of content categories and a second content sequence in a second content category of the plurality of content categories” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 3
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (server).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “identify common content from among the first content sequence and the second content sequence; and generate the hybrid content sequence by combining the first content sequence and the second content sequence, based on the common content” which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (server).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the server to generate the plurality of content sequences, based on a threshold probability using the transition information” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (server).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the server to: exclude content having a transition probability equal to or less than the threshold probability from the interrelated content; and generate the plurality of content sequences, based on content other than the excluded content” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (server).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the server to: sequentially sort the plurality of content sequences, based on a total sum corresponding to the transition information; and select the at least a portion of the plurality of sorted content sequences in an order based on the total sum” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (server).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the server to: obtain, in response to providing the at least one external electronic device with the at least a portion of the plurality of content sequences, user feedback relating to content in a content sequence; and reflect the obtained user feedback on the content for each content category” which is insignificant-extra solution activity tangentially related to the invention.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim recites “wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the server to: obtain, in response to providing the at least one external electronic device with the at least a portion of the plurality of content sequences, user feedback relating to content in a content sequence; and reflect the obtained user feedback on the content for each content category” which is the performance of repetitive calculations. The courts have determined performing repetitive calculations is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199.
Regarding claim 11
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the content sequences include a first content sequence in a first content category of the plurality of content categories and a second content sequence in a second content category of the plurality of content categories” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 12
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein the generating of the plurality of content sequences comprises: identifying common content from among the first content sequence and the second content sequence; and generating the hybrid content sequence by combining the first content sequence and the second content sequence, based on the common content” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 13
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein the generating of the plurality of content sequences comprises: based on a threshold probability using the transition information, excluding content having a transition probability equal to or less than the threshold probability from the interrelated content; and generating the plurality of content sequences, based on content other than the excluded content” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 14
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “sequentially sorting the plurality of content sequences, based on a total sum corresponding to the transition information; and selecting the at least a portion of the plurality of sorted content sequences in an order based on the total sum” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 16
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (server).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “an external electronic device to which the at least a portion of the plurality of content sequences is provided” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
Regarding claim 17
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (server).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the external electronic device comprises a display configured to display the at least a portion of the plurality of content sequences” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
Regarding claim 18
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (server).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the external electronic device comprises an input configured to receive user feedback regarding the at least a portion of the plurality of content sequences” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
Regarding claim 19
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (server).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the external electronic device comprises a communication circuit configured to communicate the user feedback to the server” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
Taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly
more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an
ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a
computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional
computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 10, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd et al (US 20160292158 A1) hereafter Todd in view of Cartoon et al (US 20160299906 A1) hereafter Cartoon
Regarding claim 1, Todd teaches a server comprising: communication circuitry, configured to communicate with at least one external electronic device; at least one processor comprising processing circuitry; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the server to: classify content into a plurality of content categories through clustering based on distances between vectors associated with respective pieces of content using a machine learning model (Para 0040, Clusters of videos may be identified by the media server 300 from user activity data 332); obtain content pool information for content pools generated by the clustering, each content pool including content corresponding to a respective content category (Para 0040, the clusters of videos may indicate sets of videos that are related to each other in some fashion); obtain transition information including transition probability matrixes related to transitions between content for each content category, each transition probability matrix representing probabilities of a user transitioning from one piece of content to another piece of content to provide a time-ordered sequence of content (Para 0042, the user activity data 332, media item metadata 330, and user data 334 may be used to determine the likelihood or probability that a user or cluster of users will select a particular media item when that particular media item is presented to the user or cluster of users); generate a plurality of content sequences each representing a sequence of interrelated content, based on the transition information, wherein the hybrid content sequence is configured based on common content identified on a boundary of the plurality of different content categories based on the distances and the transition probability matrixes associated with the content, and is generated to precisely target and recommend a content sequence corresponding to a preferred topic of the user (Para 0056, As shown in the matrix 800 and matrix 850, the user 1A2B has been presented and has selected the media items 1533 and 4823, corresponding to “Fast and Ferocious I” and “Fast and Ferocious II” shown in the first media item catalog 500 of FIG. 5A. The presentation engine 340 may include models that show that users that have been presented and watched the media item 1533 (“Fast and Ferocious I”) have a certain probability of watching the media item 4823 when presented with it); provide, via the communication circuitry, the at least one external electronic device with at least a portion of the plurality of content sequences (Para 0033, The information received from the streaming media server is rendered to the displays 136 and/or 142 in one or more graphical user interfaces).
Todd does not appear to explicitly teach the content sequences including a hybrid content sequence representing a combination of content in a plurality of different content categories; and obtain user feedback via the communication circuitry in response to the provision of the at least the portion of the plurality of content sequences, wherein the machine learning model is automatically trained, in real time, by learning the obtained user feedback and performing clustering for the content categories based on the learned user feedback to update the content pools.
In analogous art, Cartoon teaches the content sequences including a hybrid content sequence representing a combination of content in a plurality of different content categories (Para 0006, The language model can be used to generate a recommended content attribute sequence based on a partial playlist of one or more content items); and obtain user feedback via the communication circuitry in response to the provision of the at least the portion of the plurality of content sequences, wherein the machine learning model is automatically trained, in real time, by learning the obtained user feedback and performing clustering for the content categories based on the learned user feedback to update the content pools (Para 0007, the training set could be limited to playlists created by editors, or playlists that have received positive social media feedback). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Todd to include the teaching of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide the user with preferred content, as taught by Cartoon (Abs, A recommended content item sequence that will be pleasant to a user when added to the partial playlist can be selected based on the recommended content attribute sequence).
Claim 10 is the method claim corresponding to the server claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 16, Todd in view of Cartoon teaches a system comprising the server of claim 1 and an external electronic device to which the at least a portion of the plurality of content sequences is provided (Todd, Para 0044, Input device controller 406 can be any suitable circuitry for controlling and receiving input from one or more input devices 408 in some implementations).
Regarding claim 17, Todd in view of Cartoon teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the external electronic device comprises a display configured to display the at least a portion of the plurality of content sequences (Todd, Para 0044, Input device controller 406 can be any suitable circuitry for controlling and receiving input from one or more input devices 408 in some implementations).
Regarding claim 18, Todd in view of Cartoon teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the external electronic device comprises an input configured to receive user feedback regarding the at least a portion of the plurality of content sequences (Todd, Para 0044, Input device controller 406 can be any suitable circuitry for controlling and receiving input from one or more input devices 408 in some implementations).
Regarding claim 19, Todd in view of Cartoon teaches the system of claim 18, wherein the external electronic device comprises a communication circuit configured to communicate the user feedback to the server (Todd, Para 0044, Input device controller 406 can be any suitable circuitry for controlling and receiving input from one or more input devices 408 in some implementations).
Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd in view of Cartoon in view of Segel (US 20060010467 A1) hereafter Segel
Regarding claim 2, Todd in view of Cartoon teaches the server of claim 1, as shown above. Todd in view of Cartoon does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the content sequences include a first content sequence in a first content category of the plurality of content categories and a second content sequence in a second content category of the plurality of content categories.
In analogous art, Segel teaches wherein the content sequences include a first content sequence in a first content category of the plurality of content categories and a second content sequence in a second content category of the plurality of content categories (Segel, Para 0033, One or more content sequences are created for each viewer according to the respective viewer's preferences, matched with the video content which exists in the video storage). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Todd in view of Cartoon to include the teaching of Segel. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to recommend content, as taught by Segel (Para 0018, It is an object of the invention to provide a personalized video entertainment system that alleviates totally or in part the drawbacks of the prior art video entertainment systems).
Regarding claim 3, Todd in view of Cartoon in view of Segel teaches the server of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the server to: identify common content from among the first content sequence and the second content sequence; and generate the hybrid content sequence by combining the first content sequence and the second content sequence, based on the common content (Segel, Para 0046, One such algorithm employed by the video server is `preference similarity`, whereby the server `learns` which customers are most similar to each other in viewing preferences and uses the feedback information from similar customers to improve the content scheduling for other customers). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Todd in view of Cartoon to include the teaching of Segel. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to recommend content, as taught by Segel (Para 0018, It is an object of the invention to provide a personalized video entertainment system that alleviates totally or in part the drawbacks of the prior art video entertainment systems).
Regarding claim 6, Todd in view of Cartoon teaches the server of claim 1, as shown above. Todd in view of Cartoon does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the server to: sequentially sort the plurality of content sequences, based on a total sum corresponding to the transition information; and select the at least a portion of the plurality of sorted content sequences in an order based on the total sum.
In analogous art, Segel teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the server to: sequentially sort the plurality of content sequences, based on a total sum corresponding to the transition information; and select the at least a portion of the plurality of sorted content sequences in an order based on the total sum (Segel, Para 0042, Control unit 100 operates a plurality of content selectors 110-113 to filter and sort the video content items from the content storage 15 according to the viewer preference profiles VP.sub.A, VP.sub.B1, etc). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Todd in view of Cartoon to include the teaching of Segel. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to recommend content, as taught by Segel (Para 0018, It is an object of the invention to provide a personalized video entertainment system that alleviates totally or in part the drawbacks of the prior art video entertainment systems).
Regarding claim 9, Todd in view of Cartoon teaches the server of claim 1, as shown above. Todd in view of Cartoon does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the server to: obtain, in response to providing the at least one external electronic device with the at least a portion of the plurality of content sequences, user feedback relating to content in a content sequence; and reflect the obtained user feedback on the content for each content category.
In analogous art, Segel wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the server to: obtain, in response to providing the at least one external electronic device with the at least a portion of the plurality of content sequences, user feedback relating to content in a content sequence; and reflect the obtained user feedback on the content for each content category (Segel, Para 0052, in combination with a completely separate web-based interface used to enter via a computer keyboard viewer preference profile data or provide detailed feedback on attributes like or disliked about a recently viewed content item). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Todd in view of Cartoon to include the teaching of Segel. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to recommend content, as taught by Segel (Para 0018, It is an object of the invention to provide a personalized video entertainment system that alleviates totally or in part the drawbacks of the prior art video entertainment systems).
Claim 11 is the method claim corresponding to the server claim 2, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 12 is the method claim corresponding to the server claim 3, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 14 is the method claim corresponding to the server claim 6, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claims 4, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd in view of Cartoon in view of Patel et al (US 20060294084 A1) hereafter Patel
Regarding claim 4, Todd in view of Cartoon teaches the server of claim 1, as shown above. Todd in view of Cartoon does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the server to generate the plurality of content sequences, based on a threshold probability using the transition information.
In analogous art, Patel teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the server to generate the plurality of content sequences, based on a threshold probability using the transition information (Patel, Para 0033, when the advertisement selecting process calculates a probability that the user will select the at least one advertisement, according to one embodiment disclosed herein). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Todd in view of Cartoon to include the teaching of Patel. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provided targeted content, as taught by Patel (Abs, The at least one preferred advertisement is selected based on a statistical analysis of the user profile, the advertisement profile, and the content context profile).
Regarding claim 5, Todd in view of Cartoon teaches the server of claim 1, as shown above. Todd in view of Cartoon does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the server to: exclude content having a transition probability equal to or less than the threshold probability from the interrelated content; and generate the plurality of content sequences, based on content other than the excluded content.
In analogous art, Patel teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively, cause the server to: exclude content having a transition probability equal to or less than the threshold probability from the interrelated content; and generate the plurality of content sequences, based on content other than the excluded content (Patel, Para 0081, n step 220, the advertisement selecting process 140-2 uses a probabilistic cohort selection technique to assign the user 108 to a latent cohort). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Todd in view of Cartoon to include the teaching of Patel. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provided targeted content, as taught by Patel (Abs, The at least one preferred advertisement is selected based on a statistical analysis of the user profile, the advertisement profile, and the content context profile).
Claim 13 is the method claim corresponding to the server claim 5, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm est.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights