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 20 April 2026, claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended per Applicant's request. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, 16-17, and 19-20 are cancelled. No claims were withdrawn. No new claims were added. Therefore, claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11, 14-15, and 18 are presently pending in the application, of which claims 1, 8, and 15 are presented in independent form.
The previously raised 112 rejection of the pending claims is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.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The previously raised 103 rejection of the pending claims is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.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 20 April 2026 with respect to the objection of claims 1, 8, and 15 (see Remarks, p. 7) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 20 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 (see Remarks, p. 10-11) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments overcome the issues raised by 112 rejections, and the 112 rejections have been accordingly withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 20 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see Remarks, p. 7-10) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed limitations, “taken as an ordered combination, do not merely recite a desired result. Rather, the amended claims recite a particular ordered technical workflow…”. Each of the points are addressed below:
“(i) a graphical icon is associated within the media repository with both a data category and a location criterion comprising a radius extending from a location of interest”: a form of electronic recordkeeping, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Type of information is an insignificant field-of-use limitation, describing the context rather than a particular manner of achieving the result.
“(ii) detection of the graphical icon within the caption triggers assignment of the media object to the data category”: mental process of an observation, evaluation, and/or judgment. Also a form of tagging/indexing data (here, the media object to the data category).
“(iii) current location data is accessed from the second client device in response to a search request that includes the graphical icon”: extra-solution activity of storing and retrieving data from memory.
“(iv) retrieval of the media object from the media repository is conditioned on the determination that the current location data indicates a location within the radius associated with the graphical icon”: abstract idea of filtering data, indexing data, and the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of storing and retrieving data from memory
“(v) the presentation of the media object is displayed among a collection of media content that is filtered by the radius associated with the graphical icon”: filtering data, well-understood, routine and conventional activity of storing and retrieving data from memory. Presenting information is an insignificant extra-solution activity, as the presentation is not the focus of the claimed invention, nor does it further provide a concrete embodiment to the main inventive focus.
In combination, the claimed steps do nothing more than state that media objects are received, certain information about the media objects are derived and assigned to categories (i.e., a form of tagging), indexed in a repository, retrieving data from the repository, and presenting information based on certain search results. (This is in line with Applicant’s argument that “The amended claims recite a specific manner of organizing, indexing, retrieving, and presenting media content from a media repository, in which the graphical icon serves as a unified retrieval key that binds together the data category and the radius-based location criterion” (see Remarks, p. 9)).
However, the graphical icon merely serves as a tagging/indexing mechanism in association with a data category, for tagging the media content objects, which are then used to retrieve data. Such claims have previously found to be abstract by the courts, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 121 USPQ2d 1928 (Fed. Cir. 2017), in which the claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of creating an index and using that index to search for and retrieve data. The additional elements with respect to location data being retrieved from a client device, and that the location corresponds to a radius, do nothing more than attempt to limit the claims to a particular technological environment / field-of-use limitation (describing the context of retrieving location data from a client device, and that the location data corresponds to a radius rather than simply location data), rather than a particular manner of achieving the result. Such mere narrowing does not move the claims outside the realm of abstract ideas.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the additional elements being insignificant extra-solution activity, field-of-use limitations, and generic recitations of computing hardware (see Remarks, p. 9-10) are thus unpersuasive for at least the aforementioned reasons. Additionally, Applicant’s argument that “These limitations define how retrieval and presentation are carried out, not merely the outcome of those operations” (see Remarks, p. 9) is not persuasive, as the inventive focus of the claim appeared to be, according to Applicant, on the “graphical icon” which “serves as a unified retrieval key that binds together the data category and the radius-based location”; thus, retrieval and presentation operations are tangential or nominal additions to the graphical icon, rather than a concrete embodiment of, e.g., how the graphical icon is processed, stored, and retrieved beyond basic, well-understood, routine, and conventional computing functions. Even when looking at the claimed steps as an ordered combination, the most the retrieval operations recite is that certain data is retrieved based on certain search parameters (which is well-understood, routine, and conventional), and the presentation simply presents the retrieved information to the user, which does not go beyond basic functions of computers.
Thus, 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 20 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see Remarks, p. 11-13) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Huang does not teach or suggest “retrieving the media object conditioned on a determination that current location data indicates a location within a radius associated with a graphical icon” (see Remarks, p. 12). This is unpersuasive, as the rejection was based on a combination of references, and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking individual references when the rejection was based on a combination of references.
Applicant argues that Huang, as well as the secondary references, do not teach or suggest “retrieving the media object based on the graphical icon included in the search request and the data category associated with the graphical icon, where retrieval is conditioned on the radius determination” (see Remarks, p. 12) and “causing display of a presentation of the media object among a collection of media content that is assigned to the data category associated with the graphical icon and filtered by the radius associated with the graphical icon”. This is incorrect, as (1) with the exception of the radius determination, Huang discloses the rest of the claimed limitation (the 103 rejection has been modified below to conform to the amended claim language), and (2) conditioning the retrieval based on the radius determination was found to be disclosed by Devecka. Thus, as before, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive, as the rejection was based on a combination of references, and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking individual references when the rejection was based on a combination of references. Furthermore, because Devecka discloses a more specific form of the location (i.e., that the location is a radius rather than just limited to a precise location/point), therefore it would have been obvious to have substituted Devecka’s location having the radius/zone with Huang’s disclosed location for at least the reasons set forth in the 103 rejection below.
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, 7-8, 11, 14-15, and 18 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); detecting the graphical icon associated with the data category within the caption of the media object (also encompassing an evaluation, observation, and/or judgment, which falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas); responsive to detecting the graphical icon associated with the data category within the caption of the media object received from the first client device, assigning the media object the data category associated with the graphical icon; receiving a search request and [obtaining] location data responsive to a search request; retrieving a media object from the media repository based on the search request that includes the location data and the graphical icon; and causing display of a presentation of the media object at the client device (i.e., a form of providing searched for information to a user). 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).1
More particularly, the independent claims’ recitations of receiving a search request, retrieving the media object based on the search request that includes location data and the graphical icon, and causing display of a presentation of the media object among a collection of media content associated with the search request, recite 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. 18.2 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”.3 See also, e.g., Erie Indemnity4 (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).5
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), assigning (i.e., associating) the media object to the data category within a repository (an insignificant field-of-use limitation and insignificant extra-solution activity)6 based on the request (i.e., an insignificant field-of-use limitation), that the search request is received from a second client device (i.e., an insignificant extra-solution activity) and contains a graphical icon (i.e., an insignificant field-of-use limitation), accessing location data from the client device (i.e., an insignificant extra-solution activity and insignificant field-of-use limitation that it was obtained from the client device) responsive to the search request (i.e., an insignificant field-of-use limitation), 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), and displaying the media object via 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, attempting to narrow the location criterion further to a radius (that extends from the location of interest), as well as the location associated with the graphical icon similarly being associated with the radius, do nothing more than attempt to narrow the claims, i.e., simply providing additional context to an insignificant field-of-use limitation.
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. 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, 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, including the media object, search request from the client device, and presenting the media object associated with the search request); “Presenting offers and gathering statistics” with regards to the displaying steps, including presenting the media object associated with the search request).
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 courts7, 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, 7-8, 11, 14-15, and 18 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, within a media repository, a graphical icon with a data category that corresponds with a location criterion … (Huang, [0026], [0029], and [0059], where a database of content associations may be maintained 320, e.g., a pictorial representation, e.g., emoji (i.e., “graphical icon”) may be associated with a content association (i.e., “data category”)8 in the database. See also, e.g., Huang, [0058], where the database also stores (318) media content items);
receiving, from a first client device, a media object that comprises a caption that includes [an attribute]; detecting the [attribute] associated with the data category within the caption of the media object (Huang, [0025] and [0060], where the system receives media content items 104, which may have one or more visual characteristics and attributes including characters including in the content, text strings included in the content, and metadata attributes. The system may analyze one or more visual characteristics and one or more attributes in order to determine a context associated with the content item (implying that these visual characteristics and attributes were “detected” as claimed).
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);
responsive to the detecting the graphical icon associated with the data category within the caption of the media object received from the first client device, assigning the media object the data category associated with the [attribute] within the media repository (Huang, [0060], where the content item having one or more visual characteristics and one or more attributes are analyzed to determine a context associated with the content item. A content association may then be selected 326 from the maintained database of content associations, where the content association is selected 326 based on the determined context of the content item. The content item is then stored 328 in a database (i.e., “media repository”) based on the selected content association (i.e., “assigning the media object the data category associated with the [attribute]”. See also, e.g., Huang, [0053], where content associations may be automatically associated to content items, and stored as item-association relationships);
receiving a search request from a second client device, the search request including the graphical icon (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. See Huang, [0078], where the received search query may include a pictorial representation of an expression, which includes emojis (i.e., “the search request including the graphical icon”));
responsive to the search request that includes the graphical icon, accessing current location data that indicates a geographic location of the second client device (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) …;
conditioned on the determining that the current location data indicates the location … associated with the graphical icon, retrieving the media object from within the media repository based on the graphical icon included in the search request received from the second client device, the data category associated with the graphical icon; and causing display of a presentation of the media object among a collection of media content that is assigned to the data category associated with the graphical icon …, 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, [0059], where a pictorial representation of happiness (an emoji of a smiley face) may be associated with a content association of “#HAPPY” (i.e., “the data category associated with the graphical icon”). See Huang, [0078-0080], where the search query includes a pictorial representation or emoji, which may be mapped to a “sad” expression or “sad” expressive intent metadata content association (i.e., “data category associated with the graphical icon”). A candidate set of media content items are determined based on the expression received in the search query matching one or more expressive intent metadata content associations associated with the media content items in the candidate set (i.e., “a collection of media content that is assigned to the data category associated with the graphical icon”). A candidate set of media content items based on the collection (i.e., “display of a presentation of the media object”) are then 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, where the geographic location may include a GPS of a mobile device that includes a current geographic location of the user (i.e., “conditioned on determining that the current location data indicates the location”).
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 criterion] comprises a radius that extends from a location of interest; [receiving a media object that comprises a caption that includes] a graphical icon; [detecting the] graphical icon [within the media object]; [assigning the media object the data category associated with the] graphical icon [within the media repository]; the current location data indicating a location within the radius of the location criterion associated with the graphical icon that extends from the location of interest; [conditioned on determining that the current location data indicates the location] within the radius [associated with the graphical icon, [retrieving the media object based on the graphical icon included in the search request; and causing display of the media object among a collection of media content that is assigned to the data category] filtered by the radius associated with the graphical icon.
Dimson teaches [receiving a media object that comprises a caption that includes] a 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]));
[detecting the] graphical icon [within the media object]; [and assigning the media object the data category associated with the] graphical icon [within the media repository] (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”, which also implies “detecting the graphical icon within the media object” as claimed). 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).
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])9; therefore, it would have been obvious to include graphical icons that are associated with media content items 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., indexing, searching, as for textual data, e.g., hashtags.
Huang as modified does not appear to explicitly teach [the location criterion] comprises a radius that extends from a location of interest; the current location data indicating a location within the radius of the location criterion associated with the graphical icon that extends from the location of interest; [conditioned on determining that the current location data indicates the location] within the radius [associated with the graphical icon, retrieving the media object based on the graphical icon included in the search request; and causing display of the media object] filtered by the radius associated with the graphical icon.
Devecka teaches [the location criterion] comprises a radius that extends from a location of interest; the current location data indicating a location within the radius of the location criterion associated with the graphical icon that extends from the location of interest; [conditioned on determining that the current location data indicates the location] within the radius [associated with the graphical icon, [retrieving the media object; and causing display of the media object] filtered by the radius associated with the graphical icon (Devecka, [0011] and [0135-0136], where the system may provide search results for, e.g., an icon-based search, using one or more received search filters, including 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, where a user’s zone may represent a geographic region or radius based on the user’s current location. See Huang and Dimson above with respect to the graphical icon being associated with the graphical icon being associated with a location criterion (and thus, when combined with Devecka, this graphical icon would thus be associated with a location that is associated with radius)).
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”) by substituting Huang as modified’s location with a “radius of the location criterion” 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 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 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.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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 2154
8 May 2026
1 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.
2 “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…”
3 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).
4 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 121 USPQ2d 1928 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
5 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.
6 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).
7 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.
8 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.
9 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…”).
Prosecution Insights