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 .
Introductory Remarks
In response to communications filed on 4 August 2025, claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 19 are amended per Applicant's request. Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 13, 16-17, and 20 are cancelled. No claims were withdrawn. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 18-19 are presently pending in the application, of which claims 1, 8, and 15 are presented in independent form.
The previously raised 112(b), indefiniteness and 112(d) rejections of claims 5, 12, and 19 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
The previously raised 101 rejection of the pending claims is maintained.
The previously raised 103 rejection of the pending claims is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims. A new ground(s) of rejection has been issued.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4 August 2025 with respect to the 112 rejections of claims 5, 12, and 19 (see Remarks, p. 7-8) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have accordingly been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 4 August 2025 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see Remarks, p. 8-9) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims “describe a specific implementation of a technological solution to a technological problem—namely, how to effectively organize and retrieve media content using graphical icons and location-based criteria in a computer-based environment” (see Remarks, p. 8).
This is unpersuasive for at least the reasons of (1) organizing and retrieving media (i.e., information) from memory using certain types of information (e.g., graphical icons and location-based criteria), e.g., indexing information, has been recognized to be a longstanding human activity. As seen also, for example, in Erie Indemnity1, in which the claims were directed to using XML tags to index/organize the (tagged) documents, similarly, the present claims pertain to indexing/organizing the (tagged) media content using graphical icons and location-based data. The specific type of information, therefore, is nothing more than an insignificant field-of-use limitation, describing the context rather than a particular manner of achieving the result.
Applicant argues that “The claims recite a specific technological workflow between two distinct client devices that goes beyond merely organizing human activity” (Remarks, p. 8) and that “The claims recite a specific user interface workflow between a first client device and second client device” (and goes into detail as to what actions each of these client devices perform) (see Remarks, p. 8). These are arguments are unpersuasive.
The recitation of two “distinct” client devices is nothing more than an attempt to limit the claims to a particular technological environment—namely, implementation via computers through the recitation of computing hardware (i.e., client devices). The fact that there are “two” instead of “one” computer(s) involved, is nothing more than an insignificant field-of-use limitation, describing the context rather than a particular manner of achieving the result (and also attempting to limit the claims to the technological environment of a networked computing system, which, at best, provides only a narrowing of the abstract idea, which does not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea2).
Applicant’s argument that “the claims recite a specific technological improvement in how search results are presented” by having the information presented in a media feed at the second client device (see Remarks, p. 8-9) is unpersuasive. However, such steps contain no specificity with regards to how the identified recited abstract steps (in Step 2A, Prong 1) were accomplished, nor is there any specificity with regards to the specific layout/presentation of the media items, other than broadly reciting that a “media feed” is provided. As a result, this is nothing more than an insignificant field-of-use limitation, describing only the context rather than a particular manner of achieving the result.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments that the purported combination amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (see Remarks, p. 9) are unpersuasive, because claiming
“A specific two-device workflow for categorization and retrieval” is nothing more than an insignificant field-of-use limitation, describing the context rather than a particular manner of achieving a result (note that slightly narrower embodiments of abstract ideas, as noted above, does not move the claims outside the realm of abstract ideas);
“Automated location radius verification” is also an insignificant field-of-use limitation, describing the type of data that is involved rather than a particular manner by which such verification is even performed, for example;
“Integration of search results within a media feed” is also an insignificant field-of-use limitation, as noted in the previous bullet point (c) above, and
“Provides significant technological advantages over prior approaches [by enabling] more accurate and efficient organization and retrieval of media content”—provides no details with respect to how the organization is performed, and the “accuracy” is not something that is performed as a result of performing computing operations, but rather a result that flows from a user interacting with the computer (thus the computer is making the decisions rather than the computer, i.e., performing an abstract idea in conjunction with a computer)—“while incorporating automated location-based accessibility controls and an improved presentation format”—insignificant field-of-use limitations, as described in bullet points (ii) and (iii) above (and (c)).
Therefore, for at least the aforementioned reasons and those set forth in the 101 rejection below, the 101 rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 4 August 2025 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see Remarks, p. 9-11) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references do not teach or suggest the amended claim features. See, e.g., Remarks at p. 11. In particular, Applicant argues that Huang does not disclose presenting the search results “within a media feed”. The 103 rejection below acknowledges Huang’s lack of an explicit disclosure of a media feed. However, Huang does suggest or otherwise render obvious the incorporation of a media feed, for at least the reasons set forth in the 103 rejection below, which has been modified to conform to the amended claim language.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “causing display of a presentation of the media object among a collection of media content of associated with the search request within a media feed at the second client device”. There should be no “of” here, e.g., see independent claims 8 and 15, which lack this extra word. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite abstract ideas. In particular, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite certain methods of organizing human activity involving associating a graphical icon with a data category (which also encompasses an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas), accessing the media object based on the search request that includes the access condition and graphical icon, and causing display of a presentation of the media object at the client device. Essentially, the “human activity” that is involved pertains to providing information to a person based on certain criteria. See, e.g., Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018).3
Additionally, the independent claims recite “causing display of a notification…, the notification including a display of one or more data categories associated with the graphical icon based on the caption of the media object that includes the graphical icon; receiving a selection of at least a data category from among the display of the one or more data categories; assigning the media object within the repository associated with the data category based on the request; … retrieving the media object from within the repository based on the search request that includes the location data and the graphical icon”, which recites an abstract idea of creating an index and using that index to search for and retrieve data. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 121 USPQ2d 1928 (Fed. Cir. 2017), p. 18.4 This falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as well, as it is a form of filtering data / remotely accessing user specific information, which are concepts previously found to be abstract by the courts. See, e.g., discussions with regards to “filtering data”.5 See also, e.g., Erie Indemnity6 (finding that “Remotely accessing and retrieving user-specified information is an age-old practice that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet…”). See also, e.g., Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 126 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 2018).7
Because the claims recite limitations that fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas, accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the idea. The claims recite various computing hardware components and computing elements, e.g., first/second client device, which are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite associating a graphical icon with a data category corresponding to a location criteria (i.e., an insignificant extra-solution activity), that location criteria is associated with the graphical icon (i.e., an insignificant field-of-use limitation), that the location criterion comprises a radius that extends from a location of interest (i.e., an insignificant field-of-use limitation), receiving data, e.g., a media object comprising a caption (i.e., an insignificant pre-solution activity), presenting a notification at a client device to assign the media object with the data category (i.e., an insignificant extra-solution activity and insignificant field-of-use limitation by attempting to limit the claims to computers by “presenting the notification at a client device”), receiving a selection from the display (i.e., an insignificant extra-solution activity), assigning (i.e., associating) the media object to the data category (i.e., an insignificant extra-solution activity) within a repository (an insignificant field-of-use limitation and insignificant extra-solution activity)8 based on the request (i.e., an insignificant field-of-use limitation), accessing location data from the client device (i.e., an insignificant extra-solution activity) responsive to the search request (i.e., an insignificant field-of-use limitation), and retrieving data based on the search request (i.e., insignificant field-of-use limitations) from within a repository (another insignificant field-of-use limitation, and also an insignificant extra-solution activity), in addition to displaying the media object at the client device (i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity).
In particular, attempting to limit the data category to a location criterion does nothing more than provide context to the claims rather than a particular manner by which such information is utilized by the claimed invention to, e.g., effect some sort of change or improvement in the functioning of a computer. Therefore, such limitations are nothing more than insignificant field-of-use limitations, describing the context rather than a particular manner of achieving the result.
Similarly, stating that different functions are performed by different devices (e.g., the selection of the data category being performed from a first client device; a search being performed at a second client device), also do nothing more than describe the context rather than a particular manner of achieving the result, and thus amount to nothing more than insignificant field-of-use limitations.
The claims variously describe the type of information that is being presented. In particular, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite that the display of the presentation of media objects is among a collection of media content associated with the search request, which is within a media feed. Dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 recite that a set of search results are displayed in addition to the presentation of the media content. Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 recite wherein the display of the one or more categories comprises a list of data categories. These do nothing more than provide context rather than a particular manner of achieving the claimed results. Therefore, such a limitation is nothing more than an insignificant field-of-use limitation.
Dependent claims 7 and 14 recite that the media content includes one or more of image data and video data. These are insignificant field-of-use limitations, describing the context rather than a particular manner of achieving the result.
As such, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the idea.
The claims recite various computing hardware components, which are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15, dependent claims 4, 11-12, and 18-19, recite insignificant extra-solution activities which are well-understood, routine, and conventional. In particular, these claims variously recite associating data together, receiving data, indexing data, accessing/retrieving data from the repository based on a request, and displaying data. See MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) (“Electronic recordkeeping” with regards to the association/assignment of the media object with the data category within the repository; “Storing and retrieving data in memory” (with regards to indexing/storing and accessing/retrieving data, and displaying data steps); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” (with regards to receiving and transmitting data); “Presenting offers and gathering statistics” with regards to the displaying steps, including presenting a request to assign the media object with the data category).
Thus, even when considered as an ordered combination, the claimed elements do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a series of abstract steps (primarily in the form of insignificant extra-solution activities, as well as some insignificant field-of-use limitations) at a high level of generality, generally capturing certain methods of organizing human activity, which do not go beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional computing functions of associating data, receiving data, indexing and storing data for later retrieval, and (implicitly transmitting) and displaying such data. Even the storing and retrieving functions do not go beyond stating the generic computing functions that are well-known to the industry, e.g., electronic recordkeeping. See, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) at p. 15 (“one of the most basic functions of a computer…[is] to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry”).
In other words, the claimed steps do nothing more than recite generic computing functions and high-level associations of data, in addition to receiving user inputs and searching for data, i.e., remotely accessing user-specific information, filtering data, etc. As a whole, the claims recite the abstract ideas of indexing data, remotely accessing user-specific information and/or filtering data, which were previously found to be abstract by the courts9, while reciting generic and well-understood, routine, and conventional computing functions.
At this level of generality of the claims, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, and without providing any limiting detail that confines the claims to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claims confirm that they are directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of the idea.
A desired goal (i.e., result or effect), absent of structural or procedural means for achieving that goal, is an abstract idea. In this case, the claims are directed to an abstract idea for failing to describe how—by what particular process or structure—the goal is accomplished. Even with the additional elements, the claimed limitations fail to restrict how the goal is accomplished.
Thus, for at least the aforementioned reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (“Huang”) (US 2017/0083520 A1), in view of Dimson et al. (“Dimson”) (US 2017/0154055 A1), in further view of Devecka et al. (“Devecka”) (US 2015/0294356 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Huang teaches A method comprising:
associating a graphical icon with a data category that corresponds with a location criterion … (Huang, [0026], [0029], and [0059], where a pictorial representation, e.g., emoji (i.e., “graphical icon”) may be associated with a content association (i.e., “data category”)10. Content associations may be automatically generated by the content associator module 108 (i.e., “by a computing system”) based on attributes of the content items. See Huang, [0048-0049], where metadata attributes may be used for generating/selecting content associations, where such metadata attributes that are analyzed for this purpose may include a geographic location of a user);
receiving a media object that comprises a caption that includes [an attribute] (Huang, [0025], where the system receives media content items 104, which may have one or more attributes including characters including in the content, text strings included in the content, and metadata attributes.
Although Huang does not appear to explicitly state that the sequence of characters are contained within a caption to be applied to the data object, Huang suggests in [0068] that text strings may be included in the content item, i.e., which may be, e.g., captioned dialogue from a movie, which may then be utilized to derive attributes. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been suggested to have modified Huang’s disclosure with the motivation of having the caption separate from its associated image, thereby saving the system resources and time from performing image analysis on the images to extract the text);
causing display of a notification at a first client device, the notification including a display of one or more data categories associated with [the attribute] based on the caption of the media object that includes [the attribute] (Huang, [0050-0051], where the system enables manual selection of content associations for categorizing procured media content items via a user interface at a computing device (see, e.g., Huang, [0103]) (i.e., “causing display of a notification at a first client device”). The content association selection module 244 may present predicted content associations based on the content association attribute associations 250 for selection and/or confirmation by a curating user (i.e., “the notification including a display of one or more data categories associated with [the attribute]”), e.g., a media content item 104 may have a genre attribute of comedy based on pre-populated information from the media content source 124. Because the “comedy” attribute may be associated with a “#HAPPY” content association, the media content item 104 may have been assigned the “#HAPPY” content association by the metadata analyzer module 240. The content association module 244 may present the “#HAPPY” content association along with other related content associations in a user interface for a curating user to assign or revoke content associations associated with the associated content item 104 (i.e., “presenting a notification”));
receiving a selection of at least a data category from among the display of the one or more data categories from the first client device (Huang, [0053], where an association relating module 246 may relate content associations to media content items 104 in the media content store 106, which may be the result of a selection of content associations received through a user interface provided by the user interface module 242, e.g., in Huang, [0050-0051] (implying that “receiving a selection” had occurred), the user interface being at a computing device (see, e.g., Huang, [0103]) (i.e., “receiving a selection…from the first client device”));
assigning the media object within a repository associated with the data category based on the selection (Huang, [0042], where one or more content associations are associated with each media content item 104 in the media content management system 100 through various procurement methods, e.g., as discussed in Huang, [0046-0053], which corresponds to the title of “Categorizing Procured Content”, and Huang, [0050-0051] contains more details with regards to manual selection of content associations for categorizing the procured media content items 104, as detailed above. See also Huang, [0053], in the immediately preceding paragraph);
receiving a search request from a second client device … (Huang, [0041], where the system receives search request/queries for media content items received from user devices 102 via the search interface module. Note that “user devices” implies that a search may be received from “a second client device” as claimed);
accessing location data from the second client device responsive to the search request … (Huang, [0032], where data included in the personalization store may be used as one or more factors by the search interface module in determining the search intent of the user. The personalization information includes location data, which may be obtained via GPS. See Huang, [0049], where the GPS of a mobile device includes a current a current geographic location of a user, resulting in different collections or content associations being presented to the user) …;
retrieving the media object from within the repository based on the search request that includes the location data …; and causing display of a presentation of the media object among a collection of media content of associated with the search request within a media feed at the second client device (Huang, [0041], where the system may receive a request for a collection of media items based on a content association such as “#HAPPY”, “#RUDE”, “#FOMO”, etc. See Huang, [0080], where a candidate set of media content items based on the collection (i.e., “display of a presentation of the media object”) are provided to the user device to display in the user interface in response to the search query. See Huang, [0032], where personalized information such as location may be used as one or more factors by the search interface module. See also Huang, [0049], where different collections or content associations may be presented to the user based on the geographic location of the user. See Huang, [0049], where different collections or content associations may be presented to the user (i.e., “among a collection of media content”) based on the geographic location of the user (implying that the search request includes location data as a criteria for presenting different collections/content associations) (i.e., “associated with the search request”). Recall from Huang, [0041], with respect to multiple user devices being able to perform the search (i.e., “second client device”).
See Huang, [0080] and [0082], where a candidate set of media content items may be presented in the user interface in response to the search query. Thus, although Huang does not appear to explicitly state that the format is in the form of a “media feed” as claimed, Huang one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Huang to display the presented media content items in a “media feed” format with predictably equivalent operating characteristics, which is that the search results are provided to a user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to present a searching user with different media content items 104 as new items are added to the collection (and the collecting is being updated and added to in real-time), thereby enabling the media content items to be quickly rendered (see, e.g., Huang, [0033])).
Huang does not appear to explicitly teach [the location criteria] comprises a radius that extends from a location of interest; [receiving a media object that comprises a caption that includes] the graphical icon; [the data category associated with] the graphical icon[, the caption of the media object that includes] the graphical icon; [receiving a search request,] the search request including the graphical icon]; [the search request] that include[s] the graphical icon, the location data being within the radius that extends from the location of interest; [and retrieving the media object from within the repository based on the search request that includes] the graphical icon.
Dimson teaches [receiving a media object that comprises a caption that includes] the graphical icon (Dimson, [0056], where the system gathers a plurality of electronic documents and creates the repository 102. See Dimson, [0062], where the system can parse the repository 102 (and the electronic documents 104a-104n) and identify, e.g., index, standardized image characters (i.e., “graphical icons”). See Dimson, [0106], where tags may be linked to captions and comments; see Dimson, [0038], where tags may contain standardized image characters (i.e., “graphical icons”). See also Dimson, [0125], where digital content, e.g., digital images, may be tagged (i.e., “caption”) with characters including hashtags and standardized image characters, e.g., emojis (Dimson, [0005]));
[the data category associated with] the graphical icon[, the caption of the media object that includes] the graphical icon (Dimson, [0106], where regular expressions are used to parse tags (e.g., hashtags), and then indexes the corresponding digital content by tag, where regular expression may link tags in captions and comments with regards to social media posts provided (i.e., “the caption that includes the graphical icon”). See Dimson, [0057], where the repository 102 containing a plurality of electronic documents 104a-n that contain standardized image characters (Dimson, [0052]) may be generated based on location (i.e., “[the data category associated with] the graphical icon”). See also Dimson, [0134], where one or more contextual meanings (i.e., “data category”) may be associated with one or more standardized image characters);
[receiving a search request,] the search request including the graphical icon; [the search request] that include[s] the graphical icon (Dimson, [0117], where the system may conduct searches with regards to a search query containing a plurality of standardized image characters, e.g., conducting a search for both the heart standardized image character 314 and another standardized image character 322); [and]
[retrieving the media object from within the repository based on the search request that includes] the graphical icon (Dimson, [0120-0121], where in addition to conducting searches with regards to a plurality of standardized image characters, the system may also conduct searches with regards to a combination of standardized image characters and other characters, e.g., a tag containing both a standardized image character and text, e.g., “#haha”. The system searches for standardized image characters and other symbols in isolation or in combination. See Dimson, [0125], where the results display area 310 can provide for display a plurality of social media posts with characters responsive to the search query, e.g., responsive standardized image characters, in addition to a plurality of instances of digital content, e.g., digital images, tagged with characters, e.g., standardized image characters or text, responsive to the search query).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Huang and Dimson (hereinafter “Huang as modified”). Huang suggests in [0044] that various attributes, including hashtag symbols and characters included in the media content item may be used to determine content associations, i.e., for indexing. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Huang’s disclosure to include graphical icons because graphical icons are often used in social media communications (as disclosed by Dimson at [0005])11; therefore, it would have been obvious to include graphical icons in order to provide data associations/processing on a greater range of common data types being utilized by users, i.e., allowing users to perform similar functions, e.g., searching, as for textual data, e.g., hashtags.
Huang as modified does not appear to explicitly teach [the location criteria] comprises a radius that extends from a location of interest; [and] the location data being within the radius that extends from the location of interest.
Devecka teaches [the location criteria] comprises a radius that extends from a location of interest; [and] the location data being within the radius that extends from the location of interest (Devecka, [0011], where the system may provide results based on a location-based parameter or preference, e.g., an identified “zone” or geographic proximity relative to a selected location, where a “zone” may be a geographic region defined by a certain radial distance from a given point, e.g., a 10 mile radius from point A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Huang as modified and Devecka (hereinafter “Huang as modified”) with the motivation of confining the search based on location to a relevant distance from the user’s location, thereby likely being more pertinent/relevant to the user.
Regarding claim 4: Huang as modified teaches The method of claim 1, wherein causing display of the presentation of the media object includes:
causing display of a set of search results that includes the presentation of the media object (Huang, [0041], where the system may receive a request for a collection of media items based on a content association such as “#HAPPY”, “#RUDE”, “#FOMO”, etc. See Huang, [0080], where a candidate set of media content items based on the collection (i.e., “including the presentation of the media content”) are provided to the user device to display in the user interface in response to the search query. See Huang, [0032], where personalized information such as location may be used as one or more factors by the search interface module. See also Huang, [0049], where different collections or content associations may be presented to the user based on the geographic location of the user).
Regarding claim 5: Huang as modified teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the display of the one or more data categories comprises a list of data categories (Huang, [0050-0051], the system enables manual selection of content associations for categorizing procured media content items via a user interface. The content association selection module may present predicted content associations (i.e., “list of data categories”) based on content association-attribute associations 250 stored in the content association store 118 for selection and/or confirmation by a curating user operating a user device 102.
See Huang, [0053], where content associations may be associated as a result of a selection of content associations (i.e., “data categories”) received through the user interface. The item-association relationships 254 are stored in the media content store 106. See Huang, [0086], where one or more content associations may be shared by other content items in the collection (i.e., “group”)).
Regarding claim 7: Huang as modified teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the media object includes one or more of: image data; and video data (Huang, [0025], where the received media content items may include various types of content, including image content and audio-visual content, i.e., video).
Regarding claim 8: Claim 8 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Note that Huang teaches A system comprising: a memory; and at least one hardware processor coupled to the memory and comprising instructions that causes the system to perform operations comprising [the claimed steps] (Huang, [0104], where the system may be implemented by a processor executing one or more instructions stored in system memory).
Regarding claim 11: Claim 11 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14: Claim 14 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Note that Huang teaches A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising [the claimed steps] (Huang, [0104], where the disclosed steps may be implemented by a processor executing one or more instructions stored in system memory, where the instructions or data can be read into system memory from a non-volatile computer readable medium).
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19: Claim 19 recites substantially the same claim limitations as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE BAKER whose telephone number is (408)918-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5PM PT.
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, NEVEEN ABEL-JALIL can be reached at (571)270-0474. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IRENE BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
21 August 2025
1 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 121 USPQ2d 1928 (Fed. Cir. 2017) at p. 19-20 (“even if all the claims were so limited, merely using XML tags—as opposed to other kinds of tags—to build an index is still abstract. The claims are not focused on how usage of the XML tags alters the database in a way that leads to an improvement in the technology of computer databases, as in Enfish. Instead, the claims simply call for XML-specific tags in the index without any further detail…. The focus of the claims, therefore, remains at a high level of searching a database using an index. The inclusion of XML tags as the chosen index building block, with little more, does not change that conclusion”).
2 See, e.g., BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) at p. 17-18 (“…As a matter of law, narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea does not add ‘significantly more’ to it”).
3 The social activity at issue was the social activity of “providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity”. Note that this rejection is not meant to assign the identified recited abstract idea to a particular court-identified abstract idea (which is not required for 101 analysis), but rather to illustrate that, in the same vein, the claimed limitations of acquiring content and displaying the content (such as the claims in Interval Licensing, which involved acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content) falls under the realm of abstract ideas. In fact, the present claims may arguably be even more abstract than the patent-ineligible claims in Interval Licensing.
4 “This type of activity, i.e., organizing and accessing records through the creation of an index-searchable database, includes longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet…”
5 The court in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) found that “filtering content is an abstract idea because it is a long-standing, well-known method of organizing human behavior, similar to concepts previously found to be abstract” (Id. at p. 12).
6 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 121 USPQ2d 1928 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
7 The social activity at issue was voting, in which the claims provided a method for voting comprising the steps of “presenting an election ballot for voting, accepting input of the votes, storing the votes, printing out the votes…”. Thus, in a similar vein, the present claims which involve presenting a list of data categories and obtaining an input of the data category associated with the access condition, recites certain methods of organizing human activity.
8 See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the use of a well-known XML tag to form an index was deemed token extra-solution activity).
9 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 121 USPQ2d 1928 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Bascom in the Step 2A discussion for further detail.
10 See Huang, [0029], where content items 104 may be categorized into one or more collections by storing them in association with one or more content associations.
11 Dimson at [0005] (“individuals now commonly utilize digital standardized image characters (e.g., emoji) to express themselves in electronic communications. Indeed, smiley faces, hearts, thumbs-up, and other standardized image characters now commonly replace words in many electronic documents, such as social media posts, e-mails, texts, tags, comments, or instant messages…”).