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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a non-Final Office Action.
In response to Examiner's communication of 10/2/2025, Applicant responded on 2/2/2026. Amended claim 1, 4-11, 1-17, 19-20.
IDS filed on 2/2/2025 is acknowledged and considered by the Examiner.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 4-11, 1-17, 19-20 are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112 set forth in the previous action. However, Applicant’s amendments necessitate new grounds of rejections.
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 4-11, 1-17, 19-20 are not sufficient to overcome the35 USC 101 set forth in the previous action.
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 4-11, 1-17, 19-20 are sufficient to overcome the prior art rejections set forth in the previous action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits, “...August 4, 2025 Memo, if a claim has any limitation that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, it does not recite an abstract idea. A human mind cannot "cause the simulated graphical user interface associated with the streaming service to be presented on a display of a first user device associated with the first user," nor "cause the content data to be streamed over a network from the platform to the display of the first user device and presented on the display of the first user device via the graphical user interface associated with the streaming service," as amended claim 1 recites. A human mind cannot practically generate, stream, or present data on a display of a user device. Accordingly, the claim does not recite an abstract idea at least for that reason…Applicant respectfully submits that the instant claims, as amended, do integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application at least by improving at least one technical field, specifically, visualization of entropy data associated with a collection of related activities or events. As shown below, the claim limitations taken together describe the claimed advance over the prior art and demonstrate that the claim's character as a whole is directed to eligible subject matter. See Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc., 996 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2021)…The Specification explains that conventional focus group facilities that perform "in person testing" are "not always a suitable location for evaluating products and services." Specification, Abstract. Unlike these conventional focus group facilities, the platform of claim 1 allows for "a virtual focus group facility via a cloud-based platform" that "replicates and enhances conventional focus group type data collection via a controlled environment," Specification, paragraph [0009].…the claims improve the field of visualization of entropy data associated with a collection of related activities or events and are not directed to an abstract idea… The instant claims recite a non- conventional combination of simulation, user interface generation, and data collection that includes "specific limitation[s] other than what [was] well-understood, routine and conventional" in the field of visualization of entropy data associated with a collection of related activities or events at the time the priority application was filed (February 21, 2020), and enable new functionality that was not possible at the time the priority application was filed…. This ordered combination of features is inventive… Applicant respectfully notes that none of these paragraphs discuss "an express statement...that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)" as the Specification does not state "the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy," Berkheimer Memo, emphasis added. Rather, Applicant respectfully asserts that the paragraphs cited by the Examiner are illustrating and describing new and novel features and combination of features that result in a novel and non-obvious invention….” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Unlike the Aug 2025 Memo, by Applicant’s own admission, the claims and the argued elements, are directed to, …for evaluating products and services… enhances conventional focus group type data collection via a controlled environment…, which is a problem directed to organizing human activity (i.e. organizing human first users to measure and compare first human users’ emotions and reactions to advertisement content consumed and measuring advertisement and business service performance metrics) and a mental process (i.e. organizing human first users to measure and compare first human users’ emotions and reactions to advertisement content consumed and measuring advertisement and business service performance metrics), as established in Step 2A Prong 1. This problem does not specifically arise in the realm of computer technology, but rather, this problem existed and was addressed long before the advent of computers. Thus, the claims do not recite a technical improvement to a technical problem or necessarily roots in computing technologies. The alleged solutions are solutions directed to solving abstract ideas, which are still abstract ideas. Additionally, pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components, i.e. streaming content and simulated generic graphical user interfaces to human users on generic computing devices. Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer, cloud environment, and simulating generic graphical user interfaces, performing extra solution activities. Therefore, as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2 (both apply it and generally linked) or amount to significantly more under Step 2B (both apply it and WURC).
Examiner respectfully notes, the analysis under 35 USC 101 is a separate analysis from 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 prior art analysis. Many of the argued “unconventional” limitations are part of the abstract idea, and were properly treated under Step 2A Prong 1. The remaining limitations merely provide for generic computer implementation and application of these abstract concepts (apply it). Generic computer implementation does not amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, Examiner provided Applicant’s own express statement in Applicant’s own Specification admitting the additional elements are generic computer implementation of the abstract idea satisfying the Berkheimer Memo, in at least:
[0023] FIG. 1 illustrates an example pictorial view 100 of a user 102 participating in a simulation to evaluate a streaming service and/or streaming service content according to some implementations. As discussed above, a platform 104 may be configured to provide a simulated content consuming environment or application (e.g., provided by a streaming service) accessible to one or more test users, such as user 102, in order to determine one or more metrics associated with the user interface and/or overall experience of the streaming service, content that may be provided by the streaming service (such as one or more titles or visual works), advertisement content (e.g., commercials, product placements, and the like) that may be paired with the content and/or provided by the streaming service via the simulated environment.
[0024] In the current example, the platform 104 may receive content data 106 and/or service data 108 from a third party system 110. The content data 106 may include titles (e.g., visual/audio works, movies, games, television shows, episodes, podcasts, webisodes, and/or the like), advertisements (e.g., commercials, banners, product placements, reviews, in-title purchasing options, in-app purchasing options, and the like), or other data that may be consumed by the user 102 via a user device, such as a television 112, mobile electronic device 114 (e.g., smartphone, tablet, notebook, computer, or the like), audio device 116 (e.g., smart speaker system or the like), or the like. The service data 108 may include user interface data (e.g., bottoms, layouts, styles, look and feel data, and the like) associated with a streaming service provided by the third party system 110 as well as performance data (e.g., download and upload speeds, rates, and the like).
[0047] FIGS. 2-5 are flow diagrams illustrating example processes associated with the platform of FIG. 1 according to some implementations. The processes are illustrated as a collection of blocks in a logical flow diagram, which represent a sequence of operations, some or all of which can be implemented in hardware, software, or a combination thereof. In the context of software, the blocks represent computer- executable instructions stored on one or more computer-readable media that, which when executed by one or more processors, perform the recited operations. Generally, computer-executable instructions include routines, programs, objects, components, encryption, deciphering, compressing, recording, data structures and the like that perform particular functions or implement particular abstract data types.
[0048] The order in which the operations are described should not be construed as a limitation. Any number of the described blocks can be combined in any order and/or in parallel to implement the process, or alternative processes, and not all of the blocks need be executed. For discussion purposes, the processes herein are described with reference to the frameworks, architectures and environments described in the examples herein, although the processes may be implemented in a wide variety of other frameworks, architectures or environments.
[0050] At 202, a platform, such as the platform 104 of FIG. 1, may receive content data and/or service data from a third party content provider. The content data may include titles (e.g., visual/audio works, movies, games, television shows, episodes, podcasts, webisodes, and/or the like), advertisements (e.g., commercials, banners, product placements, reviews, in-title purchasing options, in-app purchasing options, and the like), or other data that may be consumed by one or more users via various types of user devices, such as televisions, mobile electronic devices (e.g., smartphone, tablet, notebook, computer, or the like), audio devices (e.g., smart speaker system or the like), or the like. The service data may include user interface data (e.g., bottoms, layouts, styles, look and feel data, and the like) associated with a streaming service provided by the third party content provider as well as performance data (e.g., download and upload speeds, rates, and the like) that the third party content provider would prefer that the platform replicate during the evaluation sessions with the test users.
[0065] At 302, a platform, such as the platform 104 of FIG. 1, may receive content data from a third party content provider. The content data may include titles (e.g., visual/audio works, movies, games, television shows, episodes, podcasts, webisodes, and/or the like), advertisements (e.g., commercials, banners, product placements, reviews, in-title purchasing options, in-app purchasing options, and the like), or other data that may be consumed by one or more users via various types of user devices, such as televisions, mobile electronic devices (e.g., smartphone, tablet, notebook, computer, or the like), audio devices (e.g., smart speaker system or the like), or the like.
[0077] At 402, a platform, such as the platform 104 of FIG. 1, may receive content data from a third party content provider. The content data may include titles (e.g., visual/audio works, movies, games, television shows, episodes, podcasts, webisodes, and/or the like), advertisements (e.g., commercials, banners, product placements, reviews, in-title purchasing options, in-app purchasing options, and the like), or other data that may be consumed by one or more users via various types of user devices, such as televisions, mobile electronic devices (e.g., smartphone, tablet, notebook, computer, or the like), audio devices (e.g., smart speaker system or the like), or the like.
[00120] Although the subject matter has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described. Rather, the specific features and acts are disclosed as exemplary forms of implementing the claims.
Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018).
Simply reciting specific limitations that narrow the abstract idea does not make an abstract idea non-abstract. 79 Fed. Reg. 74631; buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (2014); see SAP America at p. 12. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at p. 3.
Additionally, [u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). MPEP 2106.05(f).
Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are “human cognitive actions” that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as “directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging.” 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper”. 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries.” 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53. See 2106.04(a)(2).
[T]he courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality:
i. Generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857;
iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because “an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality,” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
viii. Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
[T]he courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:
i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
[T]he courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include:
i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
iii. A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Response to Arguments – Prior Art
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered.
The closest prior art are US Patent to US10957086B1 to Mathon et al., (hereinafter referred to as “Mathon”) in view of US Patent Publication to US20210368240A1 to Callow et al., (hereinafter referred to as “Callow”) in view of US Patent Publication to US20200320557A1 to Fuchs, (hereinafter referred to as “Fuchs”)
However, the teachings of the references do not teach the specific ordered sequence of limitations of independent claims 1, 11, 17,
receive content data from a third party system, the content data associated with one or more of a title or advertisement for consumption by a user via the streaming service;
generate, based at least in part on service data, a simulated graphical user interface associated with a streaming service;
select, based at least in part on characteristics of the content data, a first user to evaluate the content data from a plurality of test users;
populate the simulated graphical user interface associated with the streaming service with content titles based at least in part on content taste profiles of the first user, content provided by the streaming service, and the content data;
cause the simulated graphical user interface associated with the streaming service to be presented on a display of a first user device associated with the first user;
cause the content data to be streamed over a network from the platform to the display of the first user device and presented on the display of the first user device via the graphical user interface associated with the streaming service;
receive interaction data and sensor data associated with the first user from the first user device associated with the first user, the interaction data and the sensor data captured while the first user consumed the content data via the simulated graphical user interface and including at least a current emotion or a current reaction of the user while the content data is being consumed;
determine, based at least in part on the interaction data and the sensor data, at least one metric associated with the content data; and
send the at least one metric to the third party system.
No Non-Patent literature teach the specific ordered sequence of limitations of independent claims 1, 11, 17.
The prior art rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant(s) regard as their invention.
Claim 1, 11, 17 recite, “…display of the first user device via the graphical user interface associated with the streaming service;”. It is not clear to what this element refers. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 2-10, 12-16, 18-20 depend on claim 1, 11, 17 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies of claim 1, 11, 17, and thus, claims 2-10, 12-16, 18-20 are rejected for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1, 11, 17 as a result.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 (similarly 11, 17) recite, “…
receive content data from a third party …, the content data associated with one or more of a title or advertisement for consumption by a user via the …;
generate, based at least in part on service data, a simulated graphical user interface associated with a streaming service;
select, based at least in part on characteristics of the content data, a first user to evaluate the content data from a plurality of test users;
populate the simulated graphical user interface associated with the streaming service with content titles based at least in part on content taste profiles of the first user, content provided by the streaming service, and the content data;
cause the simulated graphical user interface associated with the streaming service to be presented on …;
cause the content data to be … to …the first user…and presented …;
receive interaction data and sensor data associated with the first user from …, the interaction data and the sensor data captured while the first user consumed the content data via the simulated graphical user interface and including at least a current emotion or a current reaction of the user while the content data is being consumed;
determine, based at least in part on the interaction data and the sensor data, at least one metric associated with the content data; and
send the at least one metric to the third party system.
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitations regarding, …receive content data from a third party …, the content data associated with one or more of a title or advertisement for consumption by a user via the …; generate, based at least in part on service data, a simulated graphical user interface associated with a streaming service; select, based at least in part on characteristics of the content data, a first user to evaluate the content data from a plurality of test users; populate the simulated graphical user interface associated with the streaming service with content titles based at least in part on content taste profiles of the first user, content provided by the streaming service, and the content data; cause the simulated graphical user interface associated with the streaming service to be presented on …; cause the content data to be … to …the first user…and presented …; receive interaction data and sensor data associated with the first user from …, the interaction data and the sensor data captured while the first user consumed the content data via the simulated graphical user interface and including at least a current emotion or a current reaction of the user while the content data is being consumed; determine, based at least in part on the interaction data and the sensor data, at least one metric associated with the content data; and send the at least one metric to the third party system…, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can include a human using their mind and using pen and paper to perform the identified limitations above,; therefore, the claims are directed to a mental process.
Further, …receive content data from a third party …, the content data associated with one or more of a title or advertisement for consumption by a user via the …; generate, based at least in part on service data, a simulated graphical user interface associated with a streaming service; select, based at least in part on characteristics of the content data, a first user to evaluate the content data from a plurality of test users; populate the simulated graphical user interface associated with the streaming service with content titles based at least in part on content taste profiles of the first user, content provided by the streaming service, and the content data; cause the simulated graphical user interface associated with the streaming service to be presented on …; cause the content data to be … to …the first user…and presented …; receive interaction data and sensor data associated with the first user from …, the interaction data and the sensor data captured while the first user consumed the content data via the simulated graphical user interface and including at least a current emotion or a current reaction of the user while the content data is being consumed; determine, based at least in part on the interaction data and the sensor data, at least one metric associated with the content data; and send the at least one metric to the third party system.…, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are organizing human first users to measure and compare first human users’ emotions and reactions to advertisement content consumed and measuring advertisement and business service performance metrics, therefore it is, fundamental economic practice and commercial interactions. Thus, the claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to a mental process, certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea identified under Step 2A, Prong 1, such as:
Claim 1, 11, 17: A platform for simulating a streaming service comprising: one or more communication interfaces to communicate with a user device; one or more processors; and computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to, One or more non-transitory computer-readable media having computer- executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to, system, streaming service, simulated graphical user interface associated with a streaming service, first user device associated with the first user, cause the simulated graphical user interface to be presented on a display of a first user device associated with the first user, the simulated graphical user interface presented on the display of the first user device, streamed over a network from the platform to the display of the first user device and presented on the display of the first user device via the graphical user interface associated with the streaming service, the first user device associated with the first user
Claim 4: machine learned
Claim 5, 20: second user device associated with the second user
Claim 13: second simulated user interface associated with the second streaming service, second simulated user interface on the first user device
, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components.
Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer.
Additionally, with respect to, “receive …”, “sending…”, these elements do not add a meaningful limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are extra-solution activity, pre and post solution activity - i.e. data gathering – “receive …”, , data output – “sending…”
Analyzing under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because, as an order combination, the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it).
Additionally, as an order combination, the additional elements append the recited abstract idea to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field as individually evinced by the applicant’s own disclosure, as required by the Berkheimer Memo, in at least:
[0023] FIG. 1 illustrates an example pictorial view 100 of a user 102 participating in a simulation to evaluate a streaming service and/or streaming service content according to some implementations. As discussed above, a platform 104 may be configured to provide a simulated content consuming environment or application (e.g., provided by a streaming service) accessible to one or more test users, such as user 102, in order to determine one or more metrics associated with the user interface and/or overall experience of the streaming service, content that may be provided by the streaming service (such as one or more titles or visual works), advertisement content (e.g., commercials, product placements, and the like) that may be paired with the content and/or provided by the streaming service via the simulated environment.
[0024] In the current example, the platform 104 may receive content data 106 and/or service data 108 from a third party system 110. The content data 106 may include titles (e.g., visual/audio works, movies, games, television shows, episodes, podcasts, webisodes, and/or the like), advertisements (e.g., commercials, banners, product placements, reviews, in-title purchasing options, in-app purchasing options, and the like), or other data that may be consumed by the user 102 via a user device, such as a television 112, mobile electronic device 114 (e.g., smartphone, tablet, notebook, computer, or the like), audio device 116 (e.g., smart speaker system or the like), or the like. The service data 108 may include user interface data (e.g., bottoms, layouts, styles, look and feel data, and the like) associated with a streaming service provided by the third party system 110 as well as performance data (e.g., download and upload speeds, rates, and the like).
[0047] FIGS. 2-5 are flow diagrams illustrating example processes associated with the platform of FIG. 1 according to some implementations. The processes are illustrated as a collection of blocks in a logical flow diagram, which represent a sequence of operations, some or all of which can be implemented in hardware, software, or a combination thereof. In the context of software, the blocks represent computer- executable instructions stored on one or more computer-readable media that, which when executed by one or more processors, perform the recited operations. Generally, computer-executable instructions include routines, programs, objects, components, encryption, deciphering, compressing, recording, data structures and the like that perform particular functions or implement particular abstract data types.
[0048] The order in which the operations are described should not be construed as a limitation. Any number of the described blocks can be combined in any order and/or in parallel to implement the process, or alternative processes, and not all of the blocks need be executed. For discussion purposes, the processes herein are described with reference to the frameworks, architectures and environments described in the examples herein, although the processes may be implemented in a wide variety of other frameworks, architectures or environments.
[0050] At 202, a platform, such as the platform 104 of FIG. 1, may receive content data and/or service data from a third party content provider. The content data may include titles (e.g., visual/audio works, movies, games, television shows, episodes, podcasts, webisodes, and/or the like), advertisements (e.g., commercials, banners, product placements, reviews, in-title purchasing options, in-app purchasing options, and the like), or other data that may be consumed by one or more users via various types of user devices, such as televisions, mobile electronic devices (e.g., smartphone, tablet, notebook, computer, or the like), audio devices (e.g., smart speaker system or the like), or the like. The service data may include user interface data (e.g., bottoms, layouts, styles, look and feel data, and the like) associated with a streaming service provided by the third party content provider as well as performance data (e.g., download and upload speeds, rates, and the like) that the third party content provider would prefer that the platform replicate during the evaluation sessions with the test users.
[0065] At 302, a platform, such as the platform 104 of FIG. 1, may receive content data from a third party content provider. The content data may include titles (e.g., visual/audio works, movies, games, television shows, episodes, podcasts, webisodes, and/or the like), advertisements (e.g., commercials, banners, product placements, reviews, in-title purchasing options, in-app purchasing options, and the like), or other data that may be consumed by one or more users via various types of user devices, such as televisions, mobile electronic devices (e.g., smartphone, tablet, notebook, computer, or the like), audio devices (e.g., smart speaker system or the like), or the like.
[0077] At 402, a platform, such as the platform 104 of FIG. 1, may receive content data from a third party content provider. The content data may include titles (e.g., visual/audio works, movies, games, television shows, episodes, podcasts, webisodes, and/or the like), advertisements (e.g., commercials, banners, product placements, reviews, in-title purchasing options, in-app purchasing options, and the like), or other data that may be consumed by one or more users via various types of user devices, such as televisions, mobile electronic devices (e.g., smartphone, tablet, notebook, computer, or the like), audio devices (e.g., smart speaker system or the like), or the like.
[0091] At 504, the platform may generate a user interface associated with the selected content data. For example, the platform may generate the user interface from one or more predetermined user interfaces that are associated with various different streaming services and any modifications requested by the third party client as well as any settings or designations associated with the channel. In some cases, the platform may include one or more machine learned models and/or networks to generate the user interface or otherwise simulate the streaming experience of a specific streaming service provider. In these cases, the one or more machine learned models and/or networks may be trained using historical service data either received or captured via one or more web crawlers over time. In some cases, the training data may be captured from the specific streaming service providers applications or provided by the streaming service provider directly.
[00100] Depending on the configuration, the computer-readable media 606 may be an example of tangible non-transitory computer storage media and may include volatile and nonvolatile memory and/or removable and non-removable media implemented in any type of technology for storage of information such as computer-readable instructions or modules, data structures, program modules or other data.
[00120] Although the subject matter has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described. Rather, the specific features and acts are disclosed as exemplary forms of implementing the claims.
Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Moreover, the remaining elements of dependent claims do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these remaining elements merely recite further abstract limitations that provide nothing more than simply a narrowing of the abstract idea recited in the independent claims.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components to “apply” the recited abstract idea, perform insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PO HAN MAX LEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3821. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 8:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PO HAN LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights