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 .
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the response received on 13 May 2026.
Claims 1, 11, 17, and 21-23 have been amended in the response received.
Claim 10 has been canceled in the response received.
Claims 5-7 and 14-15 were previously canceled.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-13, and 16-23 have been examined and are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 (ln. 22, 24, & 26-28), 11 (ln. 27, 29, & 31), and 17 (24, 26, & 28-30) recite second-item of multimedia content, which appears to be a typographical error, as the feature was previously recited as a second item of multimedia content. Appropriate correction is required.
Further, claims 1 (ln. 29), 11 (ln. 32), and 17 (ln. 31) recite the first item of content, which appears to be a typographical error, as the feature should be recited as the first item of multimedia content. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-13, and 16-23 recite allowable subject matter, and would be allowable if the claims were amended or rewritten to overcome the 101 rejection in the Office Action 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, 8-9, 11-13, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The steps for determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 can be found in the MPEP § 2106.03-2106.05.
Under Step 1, the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-4, 8-9, and 21-23, is directed to a process.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of making a recommendation to a user. Specifically, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
in response to user-selection of a first item content, presenting a stimulus to the user, wherein the stimulus comprises at least a portion of the first item of content, wherein the stimulus is content stored;
while the stimulus is being presented to the user, detecting at least one non-verbal reaction of the user to the stimulus;
responsive to the detection, processing the detected at least one non-verbal reaction to determine a response of the user to the stimulus, wherein the response includes determining whether the user has reacted positively or negatively to the stimulus;
identifying ones of the content items stored based on the determined response of the user to the stimulus, wherein the selecting is performed based on data associated with the first item of content and data associated the plurality of content items stored;
displaying a list of recommendations, wherein the list of recommendations comprises the identified ones of the plurality of content items stored;
prompting the user to select a second item of content comprising one of the recommendations from the list;
responsive to selection by the user of the second item, presenting the second-item of content;
during the presentation of the second item of content, monitoring non-verbal reactions of the user to the second-item content;
responsive to detection of non-verbal reactions of the user, processing the non-verbal reactions of the user to the second-item content to determine a response of the user to the second-item content; and
modifying presentation of the second-item content based on the determined response to the user to the first item of content.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in the guidance. When considering MPEP §2106.04(a), the claims recite an abstract idea. For example, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of making recommendations, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined in the MPEP as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection II. In this case, the abstract idea recited in claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because displaying a list of recommendations, wherein the list of recommendations comprises the identified ones of the plurality of content items stored and prompting the user to select a second item of content comprising one of the recommendations from the list are marketing and sales activities. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. See MPEP §2106.04(d). In this case, claim 1 includes additional elements such as multimedia content, a media system comprising a media device associated with a display device; multimedia content streamed from a content database storing a plurality of multimedia content items; a sensor of the media system; using the sensor, a processor of the media system; metadata associated with the first item of media content and metadata associated the plurality of multimedia content items stored in the content database; and a second item of multimedia content.
Although reciting additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., making a recommendation) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP §§2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. As such, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). See MPEP §2106.05.
In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components ... ‘ad[d] nothing ... that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Also see MPEP §2106.05(f). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 8-9, and 21-23 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 9 and 23 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1. Also, claims 2-4, 8, and 21-22 merely provide further embellishments of the abstract limitations recited in independent claim 1.
Additionally, it is noted that claims 2-3, 9, and 23 do not include further additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Furthermore, it is noted that claim 4 includes further additional elements of wherein the subvocalization signals are detected using an electrode positioned on a jaw of the user to detect neuromuscular signals; claim 8 includes further additional elements of wherein the detecting is performed using a sensor incorporated into a device worn by the user; claim 21 includes further additional elements of wherein modifying the presentation comprises muting audio of the second item of multimedia content; and claim 22 includes further additional elements of wherein modifying the presentation comprises blurring video of the second item of multimedia content. However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Thus, dependent claims 2-4, 8-9, and 21-23 are also ineligible.
Claims 11-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The steps for determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 can be found in the MPEP § 2106.03-2106.05.
Under Step 1, the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the multimedia system, as claimed in claims 11-13 and 16, is directed to a machine.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of making a recommendation to a user. Specifically, claim 11 recites the abstract idea of:
items of content, wherein each of the items of content has metadata associated therewith;
displaying selected ones of the items of content to a group of users in response to identification of the selected ones of the items of content by at least one user of the group of users;
detecting non-verbal reactions of each user of the group of users to a stimulus presented to the group of users on the at least one display, wherein the stimulus comprises a portion of a first one of the items of content;
wherein:
responsive to the detection, process the detected non-verbal reactions of the group of users are processed on a per- user basis to determine responses of the group of users to the stimulus;
identify a plurality of the content items stored based on the determined responses of the group of users to the stimulus, wherein the selecting is performed based on data associated with the first one of the items of content and data associated with the identified plurality of content items stored;
display a list of recommendations, wherein the list of recommendations comprises the identified ones of the plurality of content items stored;
prompt the user to select a second item content comprising one of the recommendations from the list;
responsive to the selection by the user of the second item content, presenting;
during the presentation of the second item content, monitor non-verbal reactions of the user to the second-item content;
responsive to detection of non-verbal reactions of the user, process the non-verbal reactions of the user to the second item content to determine a response of the user to the second item content; and
modify presentation of the second item content based on the determined response of the user to the first item of content.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in the guidance. When considering MPEP §2106.04(a), the claims recite an abstract idea. For example, claim 11 recites the abstract idea of making recommendations, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined in the MPEP as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection II. In this case, the abstract idea recited in claim 11 is a certain method of organizing human activity because identify a plurality of the content items stored based on the determined responses of the group of users to the stimulus, wherein the selecting is performed based on data associated with the first one of the items of content and data associated with the identified plurality of content items stored is a marketing and sales activity. Thus, claim 11 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. See MPEP §2106.04(d). In this case, claim 11 includes additional elements such as a multimedia system comprising: a processor; a memory device; a database; at least one sensing device; using the sensor, the display device, a plurality of the content items stored in the database; and metadata associated with the first one of the items of content and metadata associated with the identified plurality of content items stored in the database.
Although reciting additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claim 11 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., making a recommendation) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP §§2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. As such, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). See MPEP §2106.05.
Here, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 11 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 11 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components ... ‘ad[d] nothing ... that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Also see MPEP §2106.05(f). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, claim 11 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 11 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, claim 11 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 12-13 and 16 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 12-13 and 16 merely provide further embellishments of the abstract limitations recited in independent claim 11.
Additionally, it is noted that claim 12 includes further additional elements of wherein the detected non-verbal reaction comprises subvocalization signals and the sensing device comprises at least one electrode positioned on a jaw of the user to detect neuromuscular signals; claim 13 includes further additional elements of wherein the display comprises a television display; and claim 16 includes further additional elements of wherein the at least one sensing device comprises a plurality of sensing devices and wherein each one of the plurality of sensing devices is incorporated into a device worn by a user of the group of users. However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Thus, dependent claims 12-13 and 16 are also ineligible.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The steps for determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 can be found in the MPEP § 2106.03-2106.05.
Under Step 1, the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, as claimed in claims 17-20, is directed to an article of manufacture.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of making a recommendation to a user. Specifically, claim 17 recites the abstract idea of:
in response to user-selection of a first item content, presenting a stimulus to the user, wherein the stimulus comprises a portion of the first item of content,
wherein the stimulus is from storing a plurality of content items;
while the stimulus is being presented to the user, detecting at least one non-verbal reaction of the user to the stimulus;
responsive to the detection, processing the detected at least one non-verbal reaction to determine a response of the user to the stimulus;
identifying ones of the content items stored based on the determined response of the user to the stimulus, wherein the selecting is performed based on data associated with the first item of content and data associated the plurality of content items stored;
displaying a list of recommendations, wherein the list of recommendations comprises the identified ones of the plurality of content items stored;
prompting the user to select a second item of content comprising one of the recommendations from the list;
responsive to the selection by the user of the second item of content, presenting the second-item content;
during the presentation of the second item content, monitoring non-verbal reactions of the user to the second-item content;
responsive to detection of non-verbal reactions of the user, processing the non-verbal reactions of the user to the second-item content to determine a response of the user to the second-item content; and
modifying presentation of the second-item content based on the determined response of the user to the first item content;
wherein the detected non-verbal reaction comprises at least one of a facial expression, kinesics, paralinguistics, body language, posture, gaze, or a physiological response of the user.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in the guidance. When considering MPEP §2106.04(a), the claims recite an abstract idea. For example, claim 17 recites the abstract idea of making recommendations, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined in the MPEP as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection II. In this case, the abstract idea recited in claim 17 is a certain method of organizing human activity because displaying a list of recommendations, wherein the list of recommendations comprises the identified ones of the plurality of content items stored and prompting the user to select a second item of content comprising one of the recommendations form the list are marketing and sales activities. Thus, claim 17 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. See MPEP §2106.04(d). In this case, claim 17 includes additional elements such as one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising instruction for execution which, when executed by a processor, result in operations, a display device associated with a media system; wherein the stimulus is streamed from a content database of the media system; at least one sensor of the media system; using the sensor, a processor of the media system; metadata associated with the first item of content and metadata associated the plurality of content items stored in the content database, and the display.
Although reciting additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claim 17 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., making a recommendation) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP §§2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. As such, claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). See MPEP §2106.05.
Here, as noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 17 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 17 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components ... ‘ad[d] nothing ... that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Also see MPEP §2106.05(f). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, claim 17 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 17 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, claim 17 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 18-20 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 17. For example, claims 18-20 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 17.
Additionally, it is noted that claims 18-20 do not include further additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Thus, dependent claims 18-20 are also ineligible.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
Prior Art Considerations:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
Regarding the independent claims, the features are as follows:
responsive to detection of non-verbal reactions of the user, processing the non-verbal reactions of the user to the second-item of multimedia content to determine a response of the user to the second-item of multimedia content; and
modifying presentation of the second-item multimedia content based on the determined response of the user to the first item of content.
The most apposite prior art of record includes Boissière (US 11107282 B1, herein referred to as Boissière), Singh et. al. (US 20250005868 A1, herein referred to as Singh), and Malak et. al. (US 20150248722 A1, herein referred to as Malak), to teach a method for suggesting virtual reality content to a user.
The reference of Boissière discloses a method for suggesting virtual reality content to a user based on biometric characteristics of the user (Boissière, Col. 14, ln. 51-55). The method involves the user requesting via a user device, access to the virtual reality content which is downloadable while the user is currently viewing content in the virtual reality environment, such as a video content, a virtual reality game, or using an application within the virtual reality environment (Boissière, see: Col. 15, ln. 42-49 and FIG. 1B). Further, the method describes that the user can access the content when the system receives biometric characteristics of the user, such as the device used can measure the user’s heart rate via sensors, detect the user’s eye gaze, or gesture movement input (Boissière, see: Col. 12. ln. 24-29; Col. 15, ln. 19-26, 42-49, FIG. 1B). Boissière also describes that the user device can determine criteria for content suggested by the user’s comport level associated with the user’s profile, which is further determined by using the detected user biometric information, such as changes in physiological states while viewing the virtual content (Boissière, see: Col. 12, ln. 42-48; Col. 11, 44-51). Based on the criterion of comfort level associated with the user’s profile, the system can then determine recommendations of virtual reality content that is appropriate for the user (Boissière, Col. 12, ln. 40-52), where the recommendations for downloadable virtual reality content is then transmitted to the user device and received by the user, prompting the user to accessor purchase the content recommended (Boissière, Col. 12, ln. 42-48; Col. 15, ln. 42-49; and FIGS. 1B & 5A). Although Boissière describes such features, Boissière does not describe the allowable features indicated above.
The reference of Singh describes purchasing virtual items to directly download or stream to the user’s virtual reality device, where the downloadable or streamed content is received from a content database (Singh, see: paragraphs [0086], [0129]). The reference also describes that the system recognizes a user’s expressed interest in a recommended product through a specific user gesture, in this case, the user gives a thumbs-up gesture, where the virtual device recognizes this gesture, and can recognize a variety of other gestures, such as other bodily movements, or can recognize inputs such as swiping left or right to indicate approval or rejection of a product (Singh, see: paragraph [0122], [0124]). Singh describes that another object maybe identified that is more correlated to current attributes of interest of the user, where comparisons are made between properties of various objects in the environment, and selecting the one that best aligns with the user’s identified interest occurs (Singh, paragraphs [0077], [0112]). The recommendations of Singh also provide a list of multiple recommendations for a user to purchase, such as virtual goods or media assets like games or virtual reality experiences, where the content can be downloaded or streamed to the user’s device (Singh, see: paragraphs [0104], [0129]). Although Singh teaches the features, Singh does not describe nor teach the allowable features as indicated above.
The reference of Malak is merely relied upon to describe a masked video stack of two videos presented to a user as one video in a split-screen module, where two videos are different from one another visually and having been created so that the main video is blurry and the other video is in focus (Malak, see: paragraph [0084]). Although Malak describes the modifying of the blurred video of content, Malak does not describe nor teach the allowable features as indicated above.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. Moreover, the combination of features of independent claims, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias and resulting in an inappropriate combination.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner, that in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims recite allowable subject matter, as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner notes that the non-patent literature (NPL) document, titled A Public Database of Immersive VR Videos with Corresponding Ratings of Arousal, Valence, and Correlations between Head Movements and Self Report Measures, published in frontiersin.org (2017), documented on PTO-892 form as reference U, and hereinafter referred to as ‘Public Database’, describes a study that predicted relationships between user head movement and mental state, by tracking user’s head movements as they watched clips of virtual reality content, as well as considered self-reporting inputs of the user. Although ‘Public Database’ describes such features, the reference does not disclose or teach the allowable features that are stated above, and does not remedy the deficiencies of the noted prior art.
Response to Remarks
With respect to the claim objection to claim 17, in light of the Applicant’s amendments to the claim, the objection is withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s remarks filed on 13 May 2026, have been considered. The claims analyzed under the 101 eligibility analysis, are not eligible because the claims are still directed to a judicial exception. Further, when considering the amendments, under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis they do not provide sufficient language that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and under Step 2B, they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not provide an inventive concept, for reasons stated in the Office Action above, and thus, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 13 May 2026, have been considered. In light of the Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims, the claims now recite allowable subject matter for the reasons stated in the office action above, and would be allowable if the claims are rewritten or amended to overcome the current 101 rejection, and thus, the 103 rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights