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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 9, 15, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been rejected as follows.
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.
Step 1: The claims 1-14 are a method and claims 15-20 are a server. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1 and 15, taking claim 1 as a representative claim) recite:
A computer-implementable method of generating digital item recommendations for a given user of an online recommendation platform, the online recommendation platform hosting a plurality of digital items, the method being executable by a server hosting the online recommendation platform, the method comprising:
generating, by the server, a sub-set of core digital items selected for the user based on past user interactions
generating for a given core digital item of the sub-set of core digital items, at least one auxiliary digital item pre-determined for presentation to be provided to the given user in response to the given user having executed a respective user interaction of the given user with the given core digital item during appreciation thereof
at least one auxiliary digital item to be provided to the given user in response to a respective user interaction of the given user with the given core digital item during appreciation thereof, the at least one auxiliary digital item having been determined based on (i) past user interactions of the given user with the plurality of digital items and (ii) an assumption that the given user has executed the respective user interaction with the given core digital item;
generating a set of digital items including (i) the sub-set of core digital items and (ii) the at least one auxiliary digital item for the given core digital item;
transmitting, by the server, the set of digital items to an electronic device associated with the given user.
causing, by the server, presentation of the sub-set of core digital items of the set of digital items on the electronic device associated with the given user; and in response to receiving an indication of the respective user interaction with the given core digital item during the appreciation thereof, causing the electronic device to: abort presentation of the given core digital item; and execute presentation of the at least one auxiliary digital item.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claimed invention recites steps for generating a set of recommended items for a user based on their previous actions with other items of a recommendation system. As set forth in the instant specification in [0002] and [004] the claimed invention is directed to item recommendations being made through the pre-determination of auxiliary recommended items. The steps under its broadest reasonable interpretation specifically fall under sales activities. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of
A computer-implementable method of generating digital item recommendations for a given user of an online recommendation platform, the online recommendation platform hosting a plurality of digital items, the method being executable by a server hosting the online recommendation platform, (claim 1)
A server for generating digital item recommendations for a given user of an online recommendation platform hosted by the server, the online recommendation platform hosting a plurality of digital items, the server comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the server to: (claim 15)
generating, by the server, a sub-set of core digital items selected for the user based on past user interactions
generating for a given core digital item of the sub-set of core digital items, at least one auxiliary digital item pre-determined for presentation to be provided to the given user in response to the given user having executed a respective user interaction of the given user with the given core digital item during appreciation thereof
at least one auxiliary digital item to be provided to the given user in response to a respective user interaction of the given user with the given core digital item during appreciation thereof, the at least one auxiliary digital item having been determined based on (i) past user interactions of the given user with the plurality of digital items and (ii) an assumption that the given user has executed the respective user interaction with the given core digital item;
generating a set of digital items including (i) the sub-set of core digital items and (ii) the at least one auxiliary digital item for the given core digital item;
transmitting, by the server, the set of digital items to an electronic device associated with the given user.
causing, by the server, presentation of the sub-set of core digital items of the set of digital items on the electronic device associated with the given user; and in response to receiving an indication of the respective user interaction with the given core digital item during the appreciation thereof, causing the electronic device to: abort presentation of the given core digital item; and execute presentation of the at least one auxiliary digital item.
The additional elements of emphasized above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application– MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of “causing the electronic device to: abort presentation of the given core digital item; and execute presentation of the at least one auxiliary digital item” merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (streaming/recommendation platforms on a computer) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1 and 15 without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites further comprising determining, by the server before transmitting the set of digital items to the electronic device, the at least one auxiliary digital item. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites determining, by the server, the at least one auxiliary digital item which is similar to the given core digital item to present to the given user if the respective user interaction is indicative of a positive user engagement with the given core digital item; determining, by the server, the at least one auxiliary digital item which is different from the given core digital item to present to the given user if the respective user interaction is indicative of a negative user engagement with the given core digital item. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites wherein each one of the plurality of digital items is associated with at least one item feature; and the determining the at least one auxiliary digital item which is one of similar to and different from the given core digital item comprises determining, by the server, in the plurality of digital items, a digital item having the at least one feature which is, respectively, one of similar to and different from a respective item feature of the given core digital item. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites wherein the at least one item feature comprises one of: a category of the digital item and an item provider of the digital item. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites wherein the online recommendation platform is an audio streaming platform; the digital item is an audio track; and the at least one item feature comprises one of: a genre of the audio track, a mood induced by the audio track, a rhythm of the audio track, an artist performing the audio track, an album including the audio track, and user-generated playlists including the audio track. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites wherein the at least one auxiliary digital item comprises: a first auxiliary digital item, similar to the given core digital item, to be provided to the given user in case of the respective user interaction being indicative of the positive user engagement with the given core digital item; and a second auxiliary digital item, different from the given core digital item, to be provided to the given user in case of the respective user interaction being indicative of the negative user engagement with the given core digital item. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites wherein the determining the at least one auxiliary digital item further comprises applying a machine-learning algorithm (MLA) having been trained to determine, in the plurality of digital items, recommended digital items for users of the online recommendation platform based on past user interactions of the users with the plurality of digital items. Examiner notes that the recitation of “applying a machine-learning algorithm (MLA) having been trained” provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples and corresponding analysis. MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. That the machine learning algorithm is used to generally apply the abstract idea recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples and corresponding analysis.
Claim 9 recites further comprising: transmit a request to the server for generating, by the server, based on the at least on the auxiliary digital item, an other set of digital items to be recommended to the given user after appreciation of the auxiliary digital item such that: each one of a respective sub-set of core digital items of the other set of digital items is similar to the at least one auxiliary digital item; and in response to an absence of any user interaction with the given core digital item, the electronic device is configured to: execute, after the presentation of the given core digital item, presentation of a sequentially following core digital item in the sub-set of core digital items. The additional elements of “and transmit a request to the server for generating, by the server, based on the at least on the auxiliary digital item” and “and in response to an absence of any user interaction with the given core digital item, the electronic device is configured to: execute, after the presentation…” merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (streaming/recommendation platforms on a computer) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore the abstract idea is further limited and the recitation of the additional elements does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites wherein the presentation of the set of digital items on the electronic device associated with the given user is further configured to trigger the electronic device to: in response to an absence of any user interaction with any one of the sub-set of core digital items until a predetermined percentage of presentation of a last one thereof, transmit a request to the server for generating, by the server, the other set of digital items to be recommended to the given user after appreciation of the set of digital items such that: each one of the respective sub-set of core digital items of the other set of digital items is similar to at least one of the sub-set of core digital items of the set of digital items. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 11 recites wherein the respective user interaction comprises the given user providing user feedback about the at least one auxiliary digital item. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 12 recites wherein the sub-set of core digital items has a predetermined number of digital items. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 13 recites wherein the predetermined number of digital items has been determined such that a latency of the server is minimized. Per MPEP 2106.05(a), the courts found that accelerating a process (i.e. retrieval of real estate listings) when the increase speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) was not sufficient to show improvement to the computer functionality.
Claim 14 recites wherein the online recommendation platform is an audio streaming platform; and a given one of the plurality of digital items is a respective audio track. This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (streaming services) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 16-20 recite parallel claim language and therefore it rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. For these reasons claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 11, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snell (US 20160307599) in view of Harris (US 20200389705).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Snell discloses:
A computer-implementable method of generating digital item recommendations for a given user of an online recommendation platform, the online recommendation platform hosting a plurality of digital items, (First Computing Device 100a) the method being executable by a server hosting the online recommendation platform, the method comprising: (claim 1) (shown in Figure 1C)
A server for generating digital item recommendations for a given user of an online recommendation platform hosted by the server, the online recommendation platform hosting a plurality of digital items, (First Computing Device 100a) the server comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the server (claim 15) (shown in Figure 1C)
generating, by the server, ([0096] the computing device 100a or on a remote server or broadcast apparatus 106 (not shown) connected to the computing device 100a by a network.)
a sub-set of core digital items selected for the user based on the past user interactions, ([0074] In some embodiments, the user interface module 202 may display a subset of available files that is filtered according to selection criteria. The subset may be the result set of a query as set forth in more detail below. The subset may be created by reference to videos associated with past activity by the user. For instance, the user interface module 202 may collect the subset by reference to videos previously viewed by the user. The user interface module 202 may collect the subset by reference to videos contained in collections associated with a user account linked to the user as set forth in more detail below. The user interface module 202 may collect the subset by reference to videos reviewed by the user, as set forth in more detail below. And see [0078] the subset contains time-constrained videos sharing content characteristics with videos associated with past activity by the user;[0075] may collect the subset by reference to videos the user previously enjoyed)
generating, for a given core digital item of the sub-set of core digital items, at least one auxiliary digital item, pre-determined for presentation to the given user in response to the given user having executed a respective user interaction with the given core digital item during appreciation thereof, [0075] The user interface module 202 may collect the subset by reference to videos the user previously enjoyed. The user interface module 202 may determine the degree of user enjoyment of a video by analyzing behavioral indicia of user enjoyment. ([0078] In some embodiments, the subset contains time-constrained videos sharing content characteristics with videos associated with past activity by the user; for instance, if past activity of the user is associated with a particular genre, the subset may include other time-constrained videos fitting that genre. If past activity of the user is associated with a particular performer within a time-constrained video, the subset may include other time-constrained videos involving that performer.) the at least one auxiliary digital item having been pre-determined based on (i) past user interactions of the given user with the plurality of digital items and ([0078] In some embodiments, the subset contains time-constrained videos sharing content characteristics with videos associated with past activity by the user; for instance, if past activity of the user is associated with a particular genre, the subset may include other time-constrained videos fitting that genre. If past activity of the user is associated with a particular performer within a time-constrained video, the subset may include other time-constrained videos involving that performer.) (ii) an assumption that the given user has executed the respective user interaction with the given core digital item; and [0078] The subset may contain videos associated with positive experiences by the user, including videos the user interface module 202 has determined the user likes. The subset may also be created by excluding videos associated with negative experiences by the user; for instance, videos sharing characteristics with a video the user gave a negative review may be excluded from the subset. Likewise, videos sharing characteristics with a video the user interface module 202 determined the user did not like may be excluded from the subset. And see [0075]
generating a set of digital items (see "collection(s)" for example 1604) including (i) the sub-set of core digital items ([0074] In some embodiments, the user interface module 202 may display a subset of available files that is filtered according to selection criteria. The subset may be the result set of a query as set forth in more detail below. The subset may be created by reference to videos associated with past activity by the user. For instance, the user interface module 202 may collect the subset by reference to videos previously viewed by the user. The user interface module 202 may collect the subset by reference to videos contained in collections associated with a user account linked to the user as set forth in more detail below. The user interface module 202 may collect the subset by reference to videos reviewed by the user, as set forth in more detail below. And see [0078] the subset contains time-constrained videos sharing content characteristics with videos associated with past activity by the user;[0075] may collect the subset by reference to videos the user previously enjoyed) and (ii) the at least one auxiliary digital item for the given core digital item; [0075] The user interface module 202 may collect the subset by reference to videos the user previously enjoyed. The user interface module 202 may determine the degree of user enjoyment of a video by analyzing behavioral indicia of user enjoyment. ([0078] In some embodiments, the subset contains time-constrained videos sharing content characteristics with videos associated with past activity by the user; for instance, if past activity of the user is associated with a particular genre, the subset may include other time-constrained videos fitting that genre. If past activity of the user is associated with a particular performer within a time-constrained video, the subset may include other time-constrained videos involving that performer.)
transmitting, by the server, ([0096] the computing device 100a or on a remote server or broadcast apparatus 106 (not shown) connected to the computing device 100a by a network.) the set of digital items to [[the]]an electronic device associated with the given user;[0078] In some embodiments, the subset is presented to the user as a set of recommendations for the user to view.
causing, by the server, presentation of the sub-set of core digital items of the set of digital items on the electronic device associated with the given user; and [0078] In some embodiments, the subset is presented to the user as a set of recommendations for the user to view
While Snell teaches presenting a subset of media to a user based on their previous views, the reference does not expressly disclose:
in response to receiving an indication of the respective user interaction with the given core digital item during the appreciation thereof, causing the electronic device to: abort presentation of the given core digital item; and execute presentation of the at least one auxiliary digital item
However Harris teaches:
in response to receiving an indication of the respective user interaction with the given core digital item during the appreciation thereof, causing the electronic device to: abort presentation of the given core digital item; and execute presentation of the at least one auxiliary digital item (as shown in Figure 5 the user advances the media and the next media is played- [0029] Example choices may include to consume the content in its entirety, advance the content to the next selection within the content library (e.g., skip the currently-selected content), pause the consumption of the content or discontinue the use of the content selection system. The user's interaction with the presented UI may generate one or more inputs or parameters usable for the system to adjust a rating of the content. For example, the consumption behaviors of the consumer including the consumer's consumption choices (e.g., to view the content in entirety, to advance prior to completion of the content presentation, to abort operation of the content playback system, or combinations of these activities or other activities), the time at which the consumer made their consumption choices (e.g., if content advancement is chosen), etc. may be employed by the system to adjust a media approval rating for the content.)
The examiner notes the language "in response to receiving an indication of the respective user interaction with the given core digital item during the appreciation thereof, causing the electronic device to: abort presentation of the given core digital item; and execute presentation of the at least one auxiliary digital item." is conditional language and therefore given little patentable weight. However, the limitation has been addressed above with prior art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the presentation of media to a user based on their previous actions as taught in Snell to include in response to receiving an indication of the respective user interaction with the given core digital item during the appreciation thereof, causing the electronic device to: abort presentation of the given core digital item; and execute presentation of the at least one auxiliary digital item, as taught in Harris, in order to assess the appeal of content to a viewer [004].
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Snell in view of Harris teaches the limitations set forth above and Snell further discloses:
further comprising determining, by the server before transmitting the set of digital items to the electronic device, the at least one auxiliary digital item. [0075] The user interface module 202 may collect the subset by reference to videos the user previously enjoyed. The user interface module 202 may determine the degree of user enjoyment of a video by analyzing behavioral indicia of user enjoyment. [0078] The subset may contain videos associated with positive experiences by the user, including videos the user interface module 202 has determined the user likes. The subset may also be created by excluding videos associated with negative experiences by the user; for instance, videos sharing characteristics with a video the user gave a negative review may be excluded from the subset. Likewise, videos sharing characteristics with a video the user interface module 202 determined the user did not like may be excluded from the subset. In some embodiments, the subset is presented to the user as a set of recommendations for the user to view.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Snell in view of Harris teaches the limitations set forth above and Snell further discloses:
determining, by the server, the at least one auxiliary digital item which is similar to the given core digital item to present to the given user if the respective user interaction is indicative of a positive user engagement with the given core digital item; determining, by the server, the at least one auxiliary digital item which is different from the given core digital item to present to the given user if the respective user interaction is indicative of a negative user engagement with the given core digital item. [0075] The user interface module 202 may collect the subset by reference to videos the user previously enjoyed. The user interface module 202 may determine the degree of user enjoyment of a video by analyzing behavioral indicia of user enjoyment. [0078] The subset may contain videos associated with positive experiences by the user, including videos the user interface module 202 has determined the user likes. The subset may also be created by excluding videos associated with negative experiences by the user; for instance, videos sharing characteristics with a video the user gave a negative review may be excluded from the subset. Likewise, videos sharing characteristics with a video the user interface module 202 determined the user did not like may be excluded from the subset. In some embodiments, the subset is presented to the user as a set of recommendations for the user to view.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Snell in view of Harris teaches the limitations set forth above and Snell further discloses:
wherein each one of the plurality of digital items is associated with at least one item feature; and the determining the at least one auxiliary digital item which is one of similar to and different from the given core digital item comprises determining, by the server, in the plurality of digital items, a digital item having the at least one feature which is, respectively, one of similar to and different from a respective item feature of the given core digital item. [0078] In some embodiments, the subset contains time-constrained videos sharing content characteristics with videos associated with past activity by the user; for instance, if past activity of the user is associated with a particular genre, the subset may include other time-constrained videos fitting that genre
Regarding claims 5, Snell in view of Harris teaches the limitations set forth above and Snell further discloses:
wherein the at least one item feature comprises one of: a category of the digital item and an item provider of the digital item. ([0078] time constrained video)
Regarding claims 7, Snell in view of Harris teaches the limitations set forth above and Snell further discloses:
wherein the at least one auxiliary digital item comprises: a first auxiliary digital item, similar to the given core digital item, to be provided to the given user in case of the respective user interaction being indicative of the positive user engagement with the given core digital item; [0078] The subset may contain videos associated with positive experiences by the user, including videos the user interface module 202 has determined the user likes.
and a second auxiliary digital item, different from the given core digital item, to be provided to the given user in case of the respective user interaction being indicative of the negative user engagement with the given core digital item. [0078] The subset may also be created by excluding videos associated with negative experiences by the user; for instance, videos sharing characteristics with a video the user gave a negative review may be excluded from the subset. Likewise, videos sharing characteristics with a video the user interface module 202 determined the user did not like may be excluded from the subset.
Regarding claims 11, Snell in view of Harris teaches the limitations set forth above and Snell further discloses:
wherein the respective user interaction comprises the given user providing user feedback about the at least one auxiliary digital item. [negative reviews 0077 and 0078]
Claims 6, 8, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snell (US 20160307599) in view of Harris (US 20200389705) in further view of Cama (US 20170124074).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Snell in view of Harris teaches the limitations set forth above and Snell further discloses:
the digital item is an audio track ([0008]the content may be audio); and the at least one item feature comprises one of: a genre of the audio track, ([0078] In some embodiments, the subset contains time-constrained videos sharing content characteristics with videos associated with past activity by the user; for instance, if past activity of the user is associated with a particular genre, the subset may include other time-constrained videos fitting that genre.) a mood induced by the audio track, a rhythm of the audio track, an artist performing the audio track, an album including the audio track, and user-generated playlists including the audio track.
While Snell in view of Harris teaches providing recommended content based on past user interactions with media, the combination of references does not expressly disclose:
wherein the online recommendation platform is an audio streaming platform;
However Cama teaches:
wherein the online recommendation platform is an audio streaming platform; ([0019 and 0020)] streaming services)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recommendation system of Snell in view of Harris to include an audio streaming platform, as taught in Cama, in order to make users aware of musical content they might not be aware exist (paragraph 003).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Snell in view of Harris teaches the limitations set forth above.
While Snell in view of Harris teaches providing recommended content based on past user interactions with media, the references do not expressly disclose:
wherein the determining the at least one auxiliary digital item further comprises applying a machine-learning algorithm (MLA) having been trained to determine, in the plurality of digital items, recommended digital items for users of the online recommendation platform based on past user interactions of the users with the plurality of digital items
However Cama teaches:
wherein the determining the at least one auxiliary digital item further comprises applying a machine-learning algorithm (MLA) having been trained to determine, in the plurality of digital items, recommended digital items for users of the online recommendation platform based on past user interactions of the users with the plurality of digital items ([0024] The predictive analytics of the analytics engine 118 may use a set of one or more mathematical techniques or algorithms applied to the set of user preference data 101 to determine the probability that the user may enjoy the proposed musical recommendation. The analytics engine may apply one or more of the algorithms of the machine learning models 124 described below. And see [0033]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recommendation system of Snell in view of Harris to include wherein the determining the at least one auxiliary digital item further comprises applying a machine-learning algorithm (MLA) having been trained to determine, in the plurality of digital items, recommended digital items for users of the online recommendation platform based on past user interactions of the users with the plurality of digital items, as taught in Cama, in order to make users aware of musical content they might not be aware exist (paragraph 003).
Claims 9, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snell (US 20160307599) in view of Harris (US20200389705) in view of SÖDERSTRÖM (US 20230139333).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Snell in view of Harris the limitations set forth above.
While Snell in view of Harris discloses providing recommended content based on past user interactions with media, the reference does not expressly disclose:
and transmit a request to the server for generating, by the server, based on the at least on the auxiliary digital item, an other set of digital items to be recommended to the given user after appreciation of the auxiliary digital item such that: each one of a respective sub-set of core digital items of the other set of digital items is similar to the at least one auxiliary digital item; and in response to an absence of any user interaction with the given core digital item, the electronic device is configured to: execute, after the presentation of the given core digital item, presentation of a sequentially following core digital item in the sub-set of core digital items.
However SÖDERSTRÖM teaches:
and transmit a request to the server for generating, by the server, based on the at least on the auxiliary digital item, an other set of digital items to be recommended to the given user after appreciation of the auxiliary digital item such that: each one of a respective sub-set of core digital items of the other set of digital items is similar to the at least one auxiliary digital item; [0068] if the user requests to “replace” a recommended media item with another media item, the electronic device 102-1 updates one or more recommended media items that are displayed later in the set of media items (e.g., based at least in part on a similarity of the one or more recommended media items to the media item the user requested to “replace”). For example, the electronic device 102-1 changes the recommended media items based on the media items recommended to the user earlier in Playlist A that the user has listened to (e.g., or added to the Playlist A, or added as a favorite), and that the user has skipped or replaced, by updating the recommendation selection process to reflect the user's current preferences (e.g., as indicated by the user interactions).
and in response to an absence of any user interaction with the given core digital item, the electronic device is configured to: execute, after the presentation of the given core digital item, presentation of a sequentially following core digital item in the sub-set of core digital items. (examiner interprets as the initiation of the "enhanced feature 412" and allowing the playlist to play through without a feedback interaction- see Figure 4B. [0070, 71, 0089])
The examiner notes that the language and in response to an absence of any user interaction with the given core digital item, the electronic device is configured to: execute, after the presentation of the given core digital item, presentation of a sequentially following core digital item in the sub-set of core digital items is conditional language and not positively recited. Therefore, the language is given little patentable weight, however has been addressed with prior art above.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recommendation system of Snell in view of Harris which determines content to provide based on past user interactions with media to include transmit a request to the server for generating, by the server, based on the at least on the auxiliary digital item, an other set of digital items to be recommended to the given user after appreciation of the auxiliary digital item such that: each one of a respective sub-set of core digital items of the other set of digital items is similar to the at least one auxiliary digital item; and in response to an absence of any user interaction with the given core digital item, the electronic device is configured to: execute, after the presentation of the given core digital item, presentation of a sequentially following core digital item in the sub-set of core digital items, as taught in SÖDERSTRÖM, in order to provide recommendations in line with the user’s previously curated playlist reducing the need for the user to leave the playlist to discover new music recommendations (paragraphs 004-5)
Regarding claim 12, Snell in view of Harris the limitations set forth above.
While Snell in view of Harris discloses providing recommended content based on past user interactions with media, the reference does not expressly disclose:
wherein the sub-set of core digital items has a predetermined number of digital items.
However SÖDERSTRÖM teaches:
wherein the sub-set of core digital items has a predetermined number of digital items. [0086] In some embodiments, the electronic device updates (516) the user-curated playlist to include a plurality of recommended media items and positions a respective recommended media item of the plurality of recommended media items according to a predefined interval in the user-curated playlist in between media items that were added to the ordered set of media items by the user (e.g., after every two media items from the user-curated playlist, a recommended media item is added as the third item, as shown in FIG. 4B).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recommendation system of Snell in view of Harris to include wherein the sub-set of core digital items has a predetermined number of digital items as taught in SÖDERSTRÖM, in order to provide recommendations in line with the user’s previously curated playlist reducing the need for the user to leave the playlist to discover new music recommendations (paragraphs 004-5)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snell (US 20160307599) in view of SÖDERSTRÖM (US 20230139333) in view of Harris (US 20200389705) in further view of Stoksik (US 20180132002).
Regarding claim 10, Snell in view of Harris in further view of SÖDERSTRÖM discloses the limitations set forth above.
While Snell discloses providing recommended content based on past user interactions with media, the combination does not expressly disclose:
wherein the presentation of the set of digital items on the electronic device associated with the given user is further configured to trigger the electronic device to:
in response to an absence of any user interaction with any one of the sub-set of core digital items until a predetermined percentage of presentation of a last one thereof, transmit a request to the server for generating, by the server, the other set of digital items to be recommended to the given user after appreciation of the set of digital items such that: each one of the respective sub-set of core digital items of the other set of digital items is similar to at least one of the sub-set of core digital items of the set of digital items.
However SÖDERSTRÖM teaches:
in response to an absence of any user interaction with any one of the sub-set of core digital items […] of presentation of a last one thereof, transmit a request to the server for generating, by the server, the other set of digital items to be recommended to the given user after appreciation of the set of digital items such that: each one of the respective sub-set of core digital items of the other set of digital items is similar to at least one of the sub-set of core digital items of the set of digital items. [0089] In some embodiments, the electronic device selects (522) a third recommended media item to include in the user-curated playlist based on user interaction with a previously presented recommended media item (e.g., the first recommended media item). For example, the electronic device determines if the user interaction is a positive or negative interaction, and if the interaction is a positive interaction, the device provides additional recommendations similar to the previously recommended media item that received the positive interaction. […]In some embodiments, a positive interaction comprises not receiving any user interaction (e.g., wherein the user does not remove the first recommended media item from the user-curated playlist).
The examiner notes that the language in response to an absence of any user interaction with any one of the sub-set of core digital items until a predetermined percentage of presentation of a last one thereof, is conditional language and not positively recited. Therefore the language is given little patentable weight, however has been addressed with prior art above.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recommendation system of Snell in view of Harris to include in response to an absence of any user interaction with any one of the sub-set of core digital items […] of presentation of a last one thereof, transmit a request to the server for generating, by the server, the other set of digital items to be recommended to the given user after appreciation of the set of digital items such that: each one of the respective sub-set of core digital items of the other set of digital items is similar to at least one of the sub-set of core digital items of the set of digital items, as taught in SÖDERSTRÖM, in order to provide recommendations in line with the user’s previously curated playlist reducing the need for the user to leave the playlist to discover new music recommendations (paragraphs 004-5)
While Snell in view of Harris teaches providing recommended content based on past user interactions with media and SÖDERSTRÖM teaches the recommendation of other music in line with the user’s curated playlist , the combination does not expressly disclose:
in response to an absence of any user interaction with any one of the sub-set of core digital items until a predetermined percentage of presentation of a last one thereof
However Stoksik teaches
in response to an absence of any user interaction with any one of the sub-set of core digital items until a predetermined percentage of presentation of a last one thereof [0013] In a specific example embodiment, mechanisms and logic are provided that uses a particular percent completion of playback of the digital content in combination with whether the motion indication signal is received from the remote control to determine when to trigger display of the recommendations.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recommendation system of Snell in view of Harris in view of SÖDERSTRÖM to include in response to an absence of any user interaction with any one of the sub-set of core digital items until a predetermined percentage of presentation of a last one thereof, as taught in Stoksik, in order to improve the user’s viewing experience (paragraph 002).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snell (US 20160307599) in view of Harris (US 20200389705) SÖDERSTRÖM (US 20230139333) in further view of Yu (US 20050193096).
Regarding claim 13, Snell in view of Harris in further view of SÖDERSTRÖM discloses the limitations set forth above.
While Snell in view of Harris teaches providing recommended content based on past user interactions with media and SÖDERSTRÖM teaches the recommendation of other music in line with the user’s curated playlist , the combination does not expressly disclose:
wherein the predetermined number of digital items has been determined such that a latency of the server is minimized
However Yu teaches
wherein the predetermined number of digital items has been determined such that a latency of the server is minimized. ([0023] Prefetch module 24 reduces access latency of pull service 16 using document access log data 25 to determine prefetch control information 26 for prefetching a predetermined number of pull responses 18 into cache 23. and see abstract and [0013])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recommendation system of Snell in view of Harris in further view of SÖDERSTRÖM to include wherein the predetermined number of digital items has been determined such that a latency of the server is minimized, as taught in Yu, in order to optimize the performance of the pull service (paragraph 0013).
Relevant Art Not Cited
Mosthaf (US 10068257) discloses providing recommendation to a group of users associated with a playlist.
Manning (US20160147767) discloses [0048] Alternatively or in addition, items similar to the skipped item may be removed from the pool. The number of items removed from the pool may be proportional to the number of skips in recent history. Thus, if a user skips several items in a row, a relatively larger percentage of items may be removed from the pool, as this may indicate that the user's current preferences have changed, or similar. When items from a pool are placed into the user's playlist, similar items may be placed together so as to provide for smooth transitions between items. For example, in a music recommendation system, acoustically-similar songs may be placed adjacent within the playlist, presuming that they are of comparable likelihood to be presented at a particular point in the playlist, so as to allow for relatively smooth acoustic transitions between items in the playlist.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
With respect to the remarks directed to the rejection under 35 USC 102, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the claim amendments. New prior art “Harris” has been applied. With respect to the remarks directed to Soderstrom, the examiner first asserts the language of claim 9 rolled into claims 1 and 15, has now been addressed with prior art from Harris. Those particular arguments are considered moot. With respect to the remarks directed to Soderstrom not teaching the preliminary determination of the auxiliary digital items, the rejection does not rely on Soderstrom for this teaching, but rather Snell and now also Harris as shown in the updated rejection above. Therefore the claim remain rejected in light of the new rejection above.
With respect to the remarks directed to 35 USC 101, the examiner first notes, that prior art remains on the claimed invention and that the test for obviousness and the test for subject matter eligibility (SME) are different. Therefore, even if the claims did recited subject matter free of prior art, this does not inherently assert subject matter eligibility. The examiner has performed the two part test above for the claims as amended and determined, per the SME test, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101 and do not recite significantly more than generic implementation of an abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (EST).
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 2/5/2026