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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 30, 2023 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following analysis is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) published on January 7, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 50). See Also MEPE 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
With regard to claim 1:
Step 1:
Claim 1 meets step 1 requirement as it is directed towards a process, which is statutory subject matter. In this case, “a method” satisfies a “process” category.
Step 2A, prong 1 test:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, claim 1 as a whole recites a method facilitating steps of organizing human activity e.g., mental process as explained in details below.
Claim 1 in general is about how the method provides for“selecting an instance of first content and an instance of second content, wherein the instance of first content and the instance of second content are configured to be delivered to client devices, determining a plurality of first labels for a plurality of categories for the instance of first content, wherein the plurality of first labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of first content, determining a plurality of second labels for the plurality of categories for the instance of second content, wherein the plurality of second labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of second content, comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels to determine a plurality of scores for the plurality of first labels, wherein the plurality of scores is based on parameters of a matching tool that is configured to determine a match between instances of content, using a weight of a category to adjust a score in the plurality of scores to generate an adjusted score, wherein the adjusted score is for the label that is determined for the category and outputting information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores”.
The limitations of “selecting an instance of first content and an instance of second content, wherein the instance of first content and the instance of second content are configured to be delivered to client devices, determining a plurality of first labels for a plurality of categories for the instance of first content, wherein the plurality of first labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of first content, determining a plurality of second labels for the plurality of categories for the instance of second content, wherein the plurality of second labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of second content, comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels to determine a plurality of scores for the plurality of first labels, wherein the plurality of scores is based on parameters of a matching tool that is configured to determine a match between instances of content, using a weight of a category to adjust a score in the plurality of scores to generate an adjusted score, wherein the adjusted score is for the label that is determined for the category and outputting information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process/step (a mathematical relationship, formula, calculation, or concepts performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgements or opinions). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the processing from being performed as a mental process, or merely on pencil and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental step which could be performed with pen and paper, then it falls within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 test:
Do the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No as explained below.
The claim recites a physical element – “client devices” for receiving the content. The claim does not recite any physical elements to process the steps nor does it recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As will be explained below, these various tasks can be performed as mental steps. With respect to the functions of “selecting an instance of first content and an instance of second content, wherein the instance of first content and the instance of second content are configured to be delivered to client devices, determining a plurality of first labels for a plurality of categories for the instance of first content, wherein the plurality of first labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of first content, determining a plurality of second labels for the plurality of categories for the instance of second content, wherein the plurality of second labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of second content, comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels to determine a plurality of scores for the plurality of first labels, wherein the plurality of scores is based on parameters of a matching tool that is configured to determine a match between instances of content, using a weight of a category to adjust a score in the plurality of scores to generate an adjusted score, wherein the adjusted score is for the label that is determined for the category and outputting information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores” the broadest reasonable interpretation would have encompassed any forms of calculating inclusive of mental calculations.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No as explained below.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception does not amount to significantly more because it is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claims do not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
With regard to claims 2-17:
Step 1:
Claims 2-17 meet step 1 requirement as they are directed towards a process, which is statutory subject matter. In this case, “a method” satisfies a “process” category.
Step 2A, prong 1 test:
Do the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, claims 2-17 as a whole recites a method facilitating steps of organizing human activity e.g., mental process as explained in details below.
Claims 2-17 in general is about how the method provides for “extracting the plurality of first labels based on characteristics of the content of the instance of first content”, “determining a plurality of portions of the instance of second content; and extracting the plurality of first labels based on characteristics of each of the portions of the instance of second content”, “wherein comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels comprises comparing the plurality of first labels for each respective portion in the plurality of portions and the plurality of second labels, wherein a plurality of scores is determined for each respective portion”, “extracting the plurality of second labels based on characteristics of the content of the instance of second content”, “wherein using the weight of the category comprises weighting a first label in the plurality of first labels based on an importance that is associated with the first label in the plurality of first labels”, “adjusting a score for the first label based on the weight”, “a first weight for the first label in the plurality of first labels is increased, and a second weight for a second label in the plurality of first labels is decreased, wherein the first label is set as having a higher importance than the second label”, “generating an overall score for the instance of second content based on the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores”, “receiving feedback from delivering the instance of first content, and using the feedback to adjust a parameter of the matching tool, wherein the parameter is used to determine scores for the plurality of categories”, “receiving feedback from delivering the instance of first content; and using the feedback to adjust the weight of the category”, “the weight is increased when the feedback is positive, and the weight is decreased when the feedback is negative”, “wherein the instance of first content is configured to be inserted into a break of the instance of second content, wherein the information for the adjusted score and the scores in the plurality of scores rate a portion of content before the break to the instance of first content”, “adjusting the weight of the category based on the plurality of scores”, “the instance of first content comprises an instance of supplemental content, and the instance of second content comprises an instance of catalog content, wherein the instance of supplemental content is configured to be inserted in the instance of catalog content during playback of the instance of catalog content”, “wherein outputting the information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores comprises generating a user interface that displays the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores”, and “wherein outputting the information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores comprises generating a user interface that displays the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores in a bar chart, wherein a length of a bar is based on a value of the adjusted score and the scores in the plurality of scores”.
The limitations of “extracting the plurality of first labels based on characteristics of the content of the instance of first content”, “determining a plurality of portions of the instance of second content; and extracting the plurality of first labels based on characteristics of each of the portions of the instance of second content”, “wherein comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels comprises comparing the plurality of first labels for each respective portion in the plurality of portions and the plurality of second labels, wherein a plurality of scores is determined for each respective portion”, “extracting the plurality of second labels based on characteristics of the content of the instance of second content”, “wherein using the weight of the category comprises weighting a first label in the plurality of first labels based on an importance that is associated with the first label in the plurality of first labels”, “adjusting a score for the first label based on the weight”, “a first weight for the first label in the plurality of first labels is increased, and a second weight for a second label in the plurality of first labels is decreased, wherein the first label is set as having a higher importance than the second label”, “generating an overall score for the instance of second content based on the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores”, “receiving feedback from delivering the instance of first content, and using the feedback to adjust a parameter of the matching tool, wherein the parameter is used to determine scores for the plurality of categories”, “receiving feedback from delivering the instance of first content; and using the feedback to adjust the weight of the category”, “the weight is increased when the feedback is positive, and the weight is decreased when the feedback is negative”, “wherein the instance of first content is configured to be inserted into a break of the instance of second content, wherein the information for the adjusted score and the scores in the plurality of scores rate a portion of content before the break to the instance of first content”, “adjusting the weight of the category based on the plurality of scores”, “the instance of first content comprises an instance of supplemental content, and the instance of second content comprises an instance of catalog content, wherein the instance of supplemental content is configured to be inserted in the instance of catalog content during playback of the instance of catalog content”, “wherein outputting the information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores comprises generating a user interface that displays the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores”, and “wherein outputting the information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores comprises generating a user interface that displays the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores in a bar chart, wherein a length of a bar is based on a value of the adjusted score and the scores in the plurality of scores” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process/step (a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the processing from being performed as a mental process, or merely on pencil and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental step which could be performed with pen and paper, then it falls within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 test:
Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No as explained below.
The claim does not recite any physical elements nor does it recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As will be explained below, these various tasks can be performed as mental steps. With respect to the functions of “extracting the plurality of first labels based on characteristics of the content of the instance of first content”, “determining a plurality of portions of the instance of second content; and extracting the plurality of first labels based on characteristics of each of the portions of the instance of second content”, “wherein comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels comprises comparing the plurality of first labels for each respective portion in the plurality of portions and the plurality of second labels, wherein a plurality of scores is determined for each respective portion”, “extracting the plurality of second labels based on characteristics of the content of the instance of second content”, “wherein using the weight of the category comprises weighting a first label in the plurality of first labels based on an importance that is associated with the first label in the plurality of first labels”, “adjusting a score for the first label based on the weight”, “a first weight for the first label in the plurality of first labels is increased, and a second weight for a second label in the plurality of first labels is decreased, wherein the first label is set as having a higher importance than the second label”, “generating an overall score for the instance of second content based on the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores”, “receiving feedback from delivering the instance of first content, and using the feedback to adjust a parameter of the matching tool, wherein the parameter is used to determine scores for the plurality of categories”, “receiving feedback from delivering the instance of first content; and using the feedback to adjust the weight of the category”, “the weight is increased when the feedback is positive, and the weight is decreased when the feedback is negative”, “wherein the instance of first content is configured to be inserted into a break of the instance of second content, wherein the information for the adjusted score and the scores in the plurality of scores rate a portion of content before the break to the instance of first content”, “adjusting the weight of the category based on the plurality of scores”, “the instance of first content comprises an instance of supplemental content, and the instance of second content comprises an instance of catalog content, wherein the instance of supplemental content is configured to be inserted in the instance of catalog content during playback of the instance of catalog content”, “wherein outputting the information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores comprises generating a user interface that displays the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores”, and “wherein outputting the information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores comprises generating a user interface that displays the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores in a bar chart, wherein a length of a bar is based on a value of the adjusted score and the scores in the plurality of scores” the broadest reasonable interpretation would have encompassed any forms of calculating inclusive of mental calculations.
Step 2B:
Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No as explained below.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception does not amount to significantly more because it is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the claims do not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to the function of “displaying the output information”, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) would have encompassed any forms of displaying inclusive of manually displaying. The claim does not preclude manual display options.
With regard to claim 18:
Step 1:
Claim 18 meets step 1 requirement as they are directed towards a non-transitory machine readable medium which is statutory subject matter. In this case “a non-transitory machine readable medium” satisfies a “manufacture or composition of matter” category.
Step 2A, prong 1 test:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, claim 18 as a whole recites a method facilitating steps of organizing human activity e.g., mental process as explained in details below.
Claim 18 in general is about how the “non-transitory machine readable medium” provides for “selecting an instance of first content and an instance of second content, wherein the instance of first content and the instance of second content are configured to be delivered to client devices, determining a plurality of first labels for a plurality of categories for the instance of first content, wherein the plurality of first labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of first content, determining a plurality of second labels for the plurality of categories for the instance of second content, wherein the plurality of second labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of second content; comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels to determine a plurality of scores for the plurality of first labels, wherein the plurality of scores is based on parameters of a matching tool that is configured to determine a match between instances of content, using a weight of a category to adjust a score in the plurality of scores to generate an adjusted score, wherein the adjusted score is for the label that is determined for the category and outputting information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores”.
The limitations of “selecting an instance of first content and an instance of second content, wherein the instance of first content and the instance of second content are configured to be delivered to client devices, determining a plurality of first labels for a plurality of categories for the instance of first content, wherein the plurality of first labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of first content, determining a plurality of second labels for the plurality of categories for the instance of second content, wherein the plurality of second labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of second content; comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels to determine a plurality of scores for the plurality of first labels, wherein the plurality of scores is based on parameters of a matching tool that is configured to determine a match between instances of content, using a weight of a category to adjust a score in the plurality of scores to generate an adjusted score, wherein the adjusted score is for the label that is determined for the category and outputting information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process/step (a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the processing from being performed as a mental process, or merely on pencil and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental step which could be performed with pen and paper, then it falls within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 test:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No as explained below.
The claim recites the physical element – “a non-transitory machine readable medium” for receiving and processing various tasks. As will be explained below, these various tasks can be performed as mental steps. With respect to the function of “selecting an instance of first content and an instance of second content, wherein the instance of first content and the instance of second content are configured to be delivered to client devices, determining a plurality of first labels for a plurality of categories for the instance of first content, wherein the plurality of first labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of first content, determining a plurality of second labels for the plurality of categories for the instance of second content, wherein the plurality of second labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of second content; comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels to determine a plurality of scores for the plurality of first labels, wherein the plurality of scores is based on parameters of a matching tool that is configured to determine a match between instances of content, using a weight of a category to adjust a score in the plurality of scores to generate an adjusted score, wherein the adjusted score is for the label that is determined for the category and outputting information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores” the broadest reasonable interpretation would have encompassed any forms of calculating inclusive of mental calculations (a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation). The non-transitory machine readable medium used in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, (i.e., as a generic non-transitory machine readable medium for performing a generic computer function of processing data (the “selecting an instance of first content and an instance of second content, wherein the instance of first content and the instance of second content are configured to be delivered to client devices, determining a plurality of first labels for a plurality of categories for the instance of first content, wherein the plurality of first labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of first content, determining a plurality of second labels for the plurality of categories for the instance of second content, wherein the plurality of second labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of second content, comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels to determine a plurality of scores for the plurality of first labels, wherein the plurality of scores is based on parameters of a matching tool that is configured to determine a match between instances of content, using a weight of a category to adjust a score in the plurality of scores to generate an adjusted score, wherein the adjusted score is for the label that is determined for the category and outputting information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores”), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No as explained below.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception does not amount to significantly more because the additional elements, i.e. a non-transitory machine readable medium, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, i.e. a non-transitory machine readable medium. In particular, the claims recite “selecting an instance of first content and an instance of second content, wherein the instance of first content and the instance of second content are configured to be delivered to client devices, determining a plurality of first labels for a plurality of categories for the instance of first content, wherein the plurality of first labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of first content, determining a plurality of second labels for the plurality of categories for the instance of second content, wherein the plurality of second labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of second content, comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels to determine a plurality of scores for the plurality of first labels, wherein the plurality of scores is based on parameters of a matching tool that is configured to determine a match between instances of content, using a weight of a category to adjust a score in the plurality of scores to generate an adjusted score, wherein the adjusted score is for the label that is determined for the category and outputting information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, i.e. a non-transitory machine readable medium. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to claim 19:
Step 1:
Claim 19 meets step 1 requirement as they are directed towards a non-transitory machine readable medium which is statutory subject matter. In this case “a non-transitory machine readable medium” satisfies a “manufacture or composition of matter” category.
Step 2A, prong 1 test:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, claim 19 as a whole recites a method facilitating steps of organizing human activity e.g., mental process as explained in details below.
Claim 19 in general is about how the “non-transitory machine readable medium” provides for “extracting the plurality of first labels based on characteristics of the content of the instance of first content”.
The limitations of “extracting the plurality of first labels based on characteristics of the content of the instance of first content” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process/step (a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the processing from being performed as a mental process, or merely on pencil and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental step which could be performed with pen and paper, then it falls within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 test:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No as explained below.
The claim recites the physical element – “a non-transitory machine readable medium” for receiving and processing various tasks. As will be explained below, these various tasks can be performed as mental steps. With respect to the function of “extracting the plurality of first labels based on characteristics of the content of the instance of first content” the broadest reasonable interpretation would have encompassed any forms of calculating inclusive of mental calculations (a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation). The non-transitory machine readable medium used in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, (i.e., as a generic non-transitory machine readable medium for performing a generic computer function of processing data (the “extracting the plurality of first labels based on characteristics of the content of the instance of first content”), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No as explained below.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception does not amount to significantly more because the additional elements, i.e. a non-transitory machine readable medium, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, i.e. a non-transitory machine readable medium. In particular, the claims recite “extracting the plurality of first labels based on characteristics of the content of the instance of first content” step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, i.e. a non-transitory machine readable medium. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to claim 20:
Step 1:
Claim 20 meets step 1 requirement as it is directed towards an apparatus comprising one or more computer processors which is statutory subject matter. In this case “an apparatus comprising one or more computer processors” satisfies a machine category.
Step 2A, prong 1 test:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, claim 20 as a whole recites a method facilitating steps of organizing human activity e.g., mental process as explained in details below.
Claim 18 in general is about how the “apparatus comprising one or more computer processors” provides for “selecting an instance of first content and an instance of second content, wherein the instance of first content and the instance of second content are configured to be delivered to client devices, determining a plurality of first labels for a plurality of categories for the instance of first content, wherein the plurality of first labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of first content, determining a plurality of second labels for the plurality of categories for the instance of second content, wherein the plurality of second labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of second content; comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels to determine a plurality of scores for the plurality of first labels, wherein the plurality of scores is based on parameters of a matching tool that is configured to determine a match between instances of content, using a weight of a category to adjust a score in the plurality of scores to generate an adjusted score, wherein the adjusted score is for the label that is determined for the category and outputting information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores”.
The limitations of “selecting an instance of first content and an instance of second content, wherein the instance of first content and the instance of second content are configured to be delivered to client devices, determining a plurality of first labels for a plurality of categories for the instance of first content, wherein the plurality of first labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of first content, determining a plurality of second labels for the plurality of categories for the instance of second content, wherein the plurality of second labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of second content; comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels to determine a plurality of scores for the plurality of first labels, wherein the plurality of scores is based on parameters of a matching tool that is configured to determine a match between instances of content, using a weight of a category to adjust a score in the plurality of scores to generate an adjusted score, wherein the adjusted score is for the label that is determined for the category and outputting information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a mental process/step (a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the processing from being performed as a mental process, or merely on pencil and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental step which could be performed with pen and paper, then it falls within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 test:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No as explained below.
The claim recites the physical element – “an apparatus comprising one or more computer processors” for receiving and processing various tasks. As will be explained below, these various tasks can be performed as mental steps. With respect to the function of “selecting an instance of first content and an instance of second content, wherein the instance of first content and the instance of second content are configured to be delivered to client devices, determining a plurality of first labels for a plurality of categories for the instance of first content, wherein the plurality of first labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of first content, determining a plurality of second labels for the plurality of categories for the instance of second content, wherein the plurality of second labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of second content, comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels to determine a plurality of scores for the plurality of first labels, wherein the plurality of scores is based on parameters of a matching tool that is configured to determine a match between instances of content, using a weight of a category to adjust a score in the plurality of scores to generate an adjusted score, wherein the adjusted score is for the label that is determined for the category and outputting information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores” the broadest reasonable interpretation would have encompassed any forms of calculating inclusive of mental calculations (a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation). The apparatus comprising one or more computer processors used in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, (i.e., as a generic apparatus comprising one or more computer processors for performing a generic computer function of processing data (the “selecting an instance of first content and an instance of second content, wherein the instance of first content and the instance of second content are configured to be delivered to client devices, determining a plurality of first labels for a plurality of categories for the instance of first content, wherein the plurality of first labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of first content, determining a plurality of second labels for the plurality of categories for the instance of second content, wherein the plurality of second labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of second content, comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels to determine a plurality of scores for the plurality of first labels, wherein the plurality of scores is based on parameters of a matching tool that is configured to determine a match between instances of content, using a weight of a category to adjust a score in the plurality of scores to generate an adjusted score, wherein the adjusted score is for the label that is determined for the category and outputting information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores”), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No as explained below.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception does not amount to significantly more because the additional elements, i.e. an apparatus comprising one or more computer processors, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, i.e. an apparatus comprising one or more computer processors. In particular, the claims recite “selecting an instance of first content and an instance of second content, wherein the instance of first content and the instance of second content are configured to be delivered to client devices, determining a plurality of first labels for a plurality of categories for the instance of first content, wherein the plurality of first labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of first content, determining a plurality of second labels for the plurality of categories for the instance of second content, wherein the plurality of second labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of second content, comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels to determine a plurality of scores for the plurality of first labels, wherein the plurality of scores is based on parameters of a matching tool that is configured to determine a match between instances of content, using a weight of a category to adjust a score in the plurality of scores to generate an adjusted score, wherein the adjusted score is for the label that is determined for the category and outputting information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, i.e. a non-transitory machine readable medium. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. §102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dhua et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 10,176,198 B1) (hereafter referred to as “Dhua”).
With regard to claim 1, Dhua describes selecting an instance of first content and an instance of second content, wherein the instance of first content and the instance of second content are configured to be delivered to client devices (see Figure 4 and refer for example to column 7, line 62 through column 8, line 4, and to column 11, line 44 through column 12, line 26, where for example the video and the electronic catalog storing a video in Dhua correspond to applicant’s “first content and second content to be delivered to a client device”); determining a plurality of first labels for a plurality of categories for the instance of first content, wherein the plurality of first labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of first content (refer for example to column 13, lines 11-15 and lines 51-67, where the local features and the labels thereof correspond to applicant’s “first labels for a plurality of categories obtained by analysis of content of the first content”); determining a plurality of second labels for the plurality of categories for the instance of second content, wherein the plurality of second labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of second content (refer for example to column 13, lines 18-22 and lines 51-67, where the object features and the labels thereof correspond to applicant’s second labels for a plurality of categories obtained by analysis of content of the second content”); comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels to determine a plurality of scores for the plurality of first labels, wherein the plurality of scores is based on parameters of a matching tool that is configured to determine a match between instances of content (refer for example to column 13, lines 23-38); using a weight of a category to adjust a score in the plurality of scores to generate an adjusted score, wherein the adjusted score is for the label that is determined for the category (refer for example to column 13, lines 39-50 and column 14, lines 7-47); and outputting information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores (refer for example to column 14, lines 20-24).
As to claim 2, Dhua describes extracting the plurality of first labels based on characteristics of the content of the instance of first content (refer for example to column 9, line 50 through column 10, line 15).
In regard to claim 3, Dhua describes determining a plurality of portions of the instance of second content and extracting the plurality of first labels based on characteristics of each of the portions of the instance of second content (refer for example to column 8, lines 22-36).
With regard to claim 4, Dhua describes wherein comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels comprises comparing the plurality of first labels for each respective portion in the plurality of portions and the plurality of second labels, wherein a plurality of scores is determined for each respective portion (refer for example to column 10, lines 51-65).
As to claim 5, Dhua describes extracting the plurality of second labels based on characteristics of the content of the instance of second content (refer for example to column 8, lines 22-36).
In regard to claim 6, Dhua describes wherein using the weight of the category comprises weighting a first label in the plurality of first labels based on an importance that is associated with the first label in the plurality of first labels (refer for example to column 10, lines 15-60).
With regard to claim 7, Dhua describes adjusting a score for the first label based on the weight (refer for example to column 13, lines 39-50 and column 14, lines 7-47).
As to claim 8, Dhua describes a first weight for the first label in the plurality of first labels is increased, and a second weight for a second label in the plurality of first labels is decreased, wherein the first label is set as having a higher importance than the second label (refer for example to column 13, lines 39-50 and column 14, lines 7-47).
In regard to claim 9, Dhua describes generating an overall score for the instance of second content based on the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores (refer for example to column 13, lines 39-50 and column 14, lines 7-47).
With regard to claim 10, Dhua describes receiving feedback from delivering the instance of first content and using the feedback to adjust a parameter of the matching tool, wherein the parameter is used to determine scores for the plurality of categories (refer for example to column 10, lines 25-29).
As to claim 11, Dhua describes receiving feedback from delivering the instance of first content and using the feedback to adjust the weight of the category (refer for example to column 10, lines 25-29).
In regard to claim 12, Dhua describes the weight is increased when the feedback is positive, and the weight is decreased when the feedback is negative (refer for example to column 10, lines 25-29).
With regard to claim 13, Dhua describes wherein the instance of first content is configured to be inserted into a break of the instance of second content, wherein the information for the adjusted score and the scores in the plurality of scores rate a portion of content before the break to the instance of first content (refer for example to column 10, lines 11-15).
As to claim 14, Dhua describes adjusting the weight of the category based on the plurality of scores (refer to column 13, lines 39-50 and column 14, lines 7-47).
In regard to claim 15, Dhua describes the instance of first content comprises an instance of supplemental content, and the instance of second content comprises an instance of catalog content, wherein the instance of supplemental content is configured to be inserted in the instance of catalog content during playback of the instance of catalog content (refer for example to column 7, line 62 through column 8, line 4, and to column 11, line 44 through column 12, line 26, where for example the video and the electronic catalog storing a video in Dhua correspond to applicant’s “instance of supplemental content and instance catalog content”).
With regard to claim 16, Dhua describes wherein outputting the information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores comprises generating a user interface that displays the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores (refer for example to column 14, lines 16-24 and lines 46-67).
As to claim 17, Dhua describes wherein outputting the information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores comprises generating a user interface that displays the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores in a bar chart, wherein a length of a bar is based on a value of the adjusted score and the scores in the plurality of scores (refer to column 14, lines 16-24 and lines 46-67).
In regard to claim 18, Dhua describes a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions, which when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device (see Figures 6 and 7, and refer for example to column 15, lines 1-12) to be operable for selecting an instance of first content and an instance of second content, wherein the instance of first content and the instance of second content are configured to be delivered to client devices (see Figure 4 and refer for example to column 7, line 62 through column 8, line 4, and to column 11, line 44 through column 12, line 26, where for example the video and the electronic catalog storing a video in Dhua correspond to applicant’s “first content and second content to be delivered to a client device”); determining a plurality of first labels for a plurality of categories for the instance of first content, wherein the plurality of first labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of first content (refer for example to column 13, lines 11-15 and lines 51-67, where the local features and the labels thereof correspond to applicant’s “first labels for a plurality of categories obtained by analysis of content of the first content”); determining a plurality of second labels for the plurality of categories for the instance of second content, wherein the plurality of second labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of second content (refer for example to column 13, lines 18-22 and lines 51-67, where the object features and the labels thereof correspond to applicant’s second labels for a plurality of categories obtained by analysis of content of the second content”); comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels to determine a plurality of scores for the plurality of first labels, wherein the plurality of scores is based on parameters of a matching tool that is configured to determine a match between instances of content (refer for example to column 13, lines 23-38); using a weight of a category to adjust a score in the plurality of scores to generate an adjusted score, wherein the adjusted score is for the label that is determined for the category (refer for example to column 13, lines 39-50 and column 14, lines 7-47); and outputting information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores (refer for example to column 14, lines 20-24).
With regard to claim 19, Dhua describes extracting the plurality of first labels based on characteristics of the content of the instance of first content (refer for example to column 9, line 50 through column 10, line 15).
As to claim 20, Dhua describes an apparatus comprising one or more computer processors and a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions for controlling the one or more computer processors (see Figures 6 and 7, and refer for example to column 15, lines 1-12) to be operable for selecting an instance of first content and an instance of second content, wherein the instance of first content and the instance of second content are configured to be delivered to client devices (see Figure 4 and refer for example to column 7, line 62 through column 8, line 4, and to column 11, line 44 through column 12, line 26, where for example the video and the electronic catalog storing a video in Dhua correspond to applicant’s “first content and second content to be delivered to a client device”); determining a plurality of first labels for a plurality of categories for the instance of first content, wherein the plurality of first labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of first content (refer for example to column 13, lines 11-15 and lines 51-67, where the local features and the labels thereof correspond to applicant’s “first labels for a plurality of categories obtained by analysis of content of the first content”); determining a plurality of second labels for the plurality of categories for the instance of second content, wherein the plurality of second labels are based on an analysis of content of the instance of second content (refer for example to column 13, lines 18-22 and lines 51-67, where the object features and the labels thereof correspond to applicant’s second labels for a plurality of categories obtained by analysis of content of the second content”); comparing the plurality of first labels and the plurality of second labels to determine a plurality of scores for the plurality of first labels, wherein the plurality of scores is based on parameters of a matching tool that is configured to determine a match between instances of content (refer for example to column 13, lines 23-38); using a weight of a category to adjust a score in the plurality of scores to generate an adjusted score, wherein the adjusted score is for the label that is determined for the category (refer for example to column 13, lines 39-50 and column 14, lines 7-47); and outputting information for the adjusted score and scores in the plurality of scores (refer for example to column 14, lines 20-24).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gardner, Park, Byrne, Ng, Higbie, Oostveen and Chan all disclose systems similar to applicant’s claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jose L. Couso whose telephone number is (571) 272-7388. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 5:30am to 1:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached on 571-272-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center information webpage on the USPTO website. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions about access to the Patent Center, contact the Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 571-272-4100 or via email at: ebc@uspto.gov .
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.
/JOSE L COUSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
November 14, 2025