Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 04/08/2026.
Claims 1,9, 12, 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 04/08/2026 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “Amended Claim 1 does not recite a sale, offer, price, purchase, contract, financial transaction, or any rule for managing a commercial or legal relationship. Instead, Claim 1 recites a specific sequence of computer operations directed to technically modifying and rendering an electronic resource on a device. In particular, the claim recites: receiving a request for an electronic resource; identifying a digital content item; analyzing information via an ML model; determining a correlation; modifying the structure and content of the electronic resource, where that modification expressly comprises performing DOM traversal of the electronic resource and modifying the DOM to include the digital content item based on formatting and device display capabilities curating a user interface based on the correlation and the modified structure and content; and communicating the curated user interface for display. DOM traversal and DOM modification are operations on a specific technical data structure-the document object model-that defines the structure, content, and presentation of an electronic resource. These are not commercial activities, nor can they be done in the human mind. They are not advertising, marketing, or sales behaviors. They cannot fairly be characterized as organizing human activity regardless of whether a human or a computer performs them, because they are not activities that organize human behavior in the first place. The Office Action's characterization abstracts the claim away from its express DOM-based recitations and reduces it to a high-level functional summary-gather, analyze, determine, generate, transmit-that does not fairly reflect the claim language as a whole (page 2/5)”.
Examiner disagrees. receiving a request for an electronic resource; identifying a digital content item; analyzing information via an ML model; determining a correlation; modifying the structure and content of the electronic resource, where that modification expressly comprises performing DOM traversal of the electronic resource and modifying the DOM to include the digital content item based on formatting and device display capabilities curating a user interface based on the correlation and the modified structure and content; and communicating the curated user interface for display is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
The use of a generic computer (e.g. a device) and computer components (User interface ) fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (a specific sequence of computer operations directed to technically modifying and rendering an electronic resource) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
Further more, The applicant's argument that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the steps of (receiving a request for an electronic resource; identifying a digital content item; analyzing information via an ML model; determining a correlation; modifying the structure and content of the electronic resource, where that modification expressly comprises performing DOM traversal of the electronic resource and modifying the DOM to include the digital content item based on formatting and device display capabilities curating a user interface based on the correlation and the modified structure and content; and communicating the curated user interface for display) cannot be performed by a human being is not convincing. The only abstract idea bucket in which performance by a human is required is the "Mental Process" bucket which requires that the steps be capable of being performed in the human mind. The claims of the instant invention have not been identified as a "Mental Process". Instead the claims of the instant invention have been identified as "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". The Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines indicate that "advertising, marketing or sales related activities" is a subcategory of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". There is no requirement that these "advertising, marketing, or sales related activities" be performed by a human being. Therefore, all steps involved in the performance of advertising, marketing or sales related activities are part of the abstract idea itself irrespective of whether they are performed by a computer or performed by a human being. Thus, the applicant's arguments are moot. Accordingly the claim rejection of claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “In Core Wireless, the court held that claims directed to a specific manner of displaying information on a device-including a particular UI structure with summarized data and links to underlying content were not directed to an abstract idea. The court emphasized that the claims were directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices, not to the abstract idea of presenting information. Similarly, amended Claim 1 is directed to a particular technical manner of modifying and rendering an electronic resource through DOM-level operations constrained by content-formatting and device-display parameters, not to the abstract concept of matching content. Accordingly, under Step 2A, Prong One, Claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception (page 2/5)”.
Examiner disagrees. In Core wireless, the patent discloses improved display interfaces particularly to electronic devices with small screens, allowing user to more quick access to desired data stored in and functions of applications included in the device. Here, the currently amended independent claims Do Not reduce the number of steps needed to access or suppress information Nor provide a specific improvement over prior art systems, because modifying and rendering an electronic resource through DOM-level operations constrained by content-formatting and device-display parameters, here is not efficient and/or different than any existing modifying and rendering an electronic resource through DOM-level operations constrained by content-formatting and device-display parameters used in prior computer systems.
Also, the use of a generic computer (e.g. a device) and computer components (User interface ) fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Accordingly the claim rejection of claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “ amended Claim 1 is not limited to naming those elements as a technological environment. The DOM traversal and DOM modification limitations define how the electronic resource's structure is technically changed-at the level of the document object model-and that modification is constrained by specific parameters: the formatting of the digital content item and the display capabilities of the requesting device. This is a meaningful technological application that imposes concrete limits on how the claimed process operates and what technical result it produces. As in Core Wireless, where the court found that claims specifying a particular manner of displaying a limited set of information on a device were not merely an instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, Claim 1 here specifies a particular technical workflow for modifying the structure of an electronic resource at the DOM level and rendering that resource in a curated user interface. The claim therefore imposes meaningful limits that go well beyond merely linking any alleged abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the receiving and communicating limitations are not properly dismissed as insignificant extra-solution activity when the claim is read as a whole. The communication step is expressly tied to the claimed technological result: display of the electronic resource within the curated user interface in accordance with the modified structure and content. The claim thus recites more than simply receiving information and transmitting a result. Accordingly, even if any judicial exception were considered to be recited, amended Claim 1 integrates that subject matter into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two (page 3/5)”.
Examiner disagrees. Alice decision requires the "additional elements" of the claim which must contribute something "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself that is far from routine and conventional. However, the only "additional elements" in the applicant's claims are a general- purpose computer and general computer components (a generic computer (e.g. a device) and computer components (User interface ). These "additional elements" are merely used as a tool to apply the abstract idea which is insufficient to be considered "significantly more" than the abstract idea. The argued limitations which the applicant asserts are far from routine and conventional are part of the abstract idea itself and not "additional elements" of the claimed invention. Thus, the argued limitations are not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Instead, the argued limitations that the applicant asserts are far from routine and conventional would be, at best, an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter.
As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of representative claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Furthermore, In Core wireless, the patent discloses improved display interfaces particularly to electronic devices with small screens, allowing user to more quick access to desired data stored in and functions of applications included in the device. Here, the currently amended independent claims Do Not reduce the number of steps needed to access or suppress information Nor provide a specific improvement over prior art systems, because modifying and rendering an electronic resource through DOM-level operations constrained by content-formatting and device-display parameters, here is not efficient and/or different than any existing modifying and rendering an electronic resource through DOM-level operations constrained by content-formatting and device-display parameters used in prior computer systems. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly the claim rejection of claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “The Office Action reduces the claim to generic use of a network, device, electronic resource, machine learning model, display, and user interface. See Office Action at page 6. But Step 2B requires consideration of the claim as a whole, including the ordered combination of limitations actually recited. Claim 1 recites a specific ordered sequence: receiving a request; identifying a digital content item; analyzing information via an ML model; determining a correlation; modifying the electronic resource through DOM traversal and DOM modification based on content-formatting and device-display parameters; curating a user interface based on the correlation and the modified structure; and communicating the curated user interface for rendering on the device. That ordered combination defines a particular technical workflow, not merely a generic instruction to apply an alleged abstract idea on a computer. Moreover, the present factual record directly supports patent eligibility. The Examiner has expressly withdrawn all art rejections, stating that Claims 1-20 recite subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the Applicant were able to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Office Action at page 10. Applicant respectfully submits that this is affirmative evidence that the elements of the claims, both individually and in their ordered combination, are not well- understood, routine, or conventional. While the requirements for novelty and non-obviousness are separate from the "significantly more" analysis under § 101, the Examiner's own finding that no prior art teaches the claimed limitations weighs against a conclusion that those same limitations represent merely routine or conventional activity (page 4/5)”.
Examiner disagrees. Under MPEP § 2106, the Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself.
In the instant case the only additional elements are “a generic computer (e.g. a device) and computer components (User interface )”, as evidenced by applicant specification [21] upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
Thus, any purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer, and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied.
Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and the SAP v Investpic decision - Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract). As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of representative claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, representative claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) ” .
As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of representative claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system and a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes). However, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea:
“ receiving, a request from a user, the request identifying resource, the resource comprising information corresponding to a sentiment of content of the resource; identifying, based on the resource, a digital content item, the digital content item comprising information corresponding to a context of content of the digital content item; analyzing, the information related to the resource and the information related to the digital content item; determining, based on the ML model analysis, a correlation between the electronic resource and the digital content item, the correlation providing an indication of a similarity between the sentiment of the electronic resource and the context of the digital content item; modifying a structure and content of the electronic resource based on parameters associated with the digital content item and parameters associated with the device, the parameters of the digital content item corresponding to formatting of the digital content item, the parameters of the device corresponding to the display capabilities for rendering the electronic resource the modification comprising: performing document object model (DOM) traversal of the electronic resource, and modifying the DOM to include the digital content item based on the formatting of the digital content item and the display capabilities for rendering the electronic resource ; curating, based on the determined correlation and the modified structure and content of the electronic resource, a user interface (UI) for the electronic resource; and transmitting (e.g. communicating) the curated UI of the electronic resource, the communication causing display of the curated UI on a display of the device, such that the electronic resource is displayed within the curated UI in accordance with the modified structure and content ”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “a network, device , electronic resource, machine learning (ML) model, display, user interface” . The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receiving, over a network, a request from a device of a user, the request identifying an electronic resource, the electronic resource comprising information corresponding to a sentiment of content of the electronic resource;
transmitting (e.g. Communicating), over the network, the curated UI of the electronic resource, the communication causing display of the curated UI on a display of the device, such that the electronic resource is displayed within the curated UI in accordance with the modified structure and content;
More The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using of “a network, device , electronic resource, machine learning (ML) model, display, user interface”, (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer component).
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraph 21 of the applicant’s specification) and the affinity v Direct TV decision which states that User Interface is a generic computer component); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receiving, over a network, a request from a device of a user, the request identifying an electronic resource, the electronic resource comprising information corresponding to a sentiment of content of the electronic resource;
transmitting (e.g. Communicating), over the network, the curated UI of the electronic resource, the communication causing display of the curated UI on a display of the device, such that the electronic resource is displayed within the curated UI in accordance with the modified structure and content;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 9 and 15.
Dependent 2-8, 10-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims merely add further details that narrow that abstract idea of, without significantly more, by adding the additional steps of analyzing data and metadata related to the electronic resource and attributes related to the content of the electronic resource; and extracting, based on the determined attributes, the information from the electronic resource (claim 2); determining, via the LLM, the sentiment of the content of the electronic content; and storing the determined sentiment in a profile, wherein the analysis, via the ML model, is based on a retrieval of the stored sentiment from the profile (claims 3, 10, 16); determined correlation comprises an indication that similarity between the sentiment and the context does not satisfy a similarity threshold (claims 4, 11, 17) and wherein curation of the UI comprises a rendering of the electronic resource with the digital content item, wherein the curation comprises modifying the electronic resource to include the digital content item (claims 7, 14, 20); identifying another digital content item; and performing the determination of correlation for the other digital content item (claims 5, 12, 18) ; rendering of the electronic resource without the digital content item (claims 6, 13 and 19); searching a content repository based on a query defined at least by the sentiment of the content of the electronic resource; and identifying, based on the search, the digital content item (claim 8). and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independent claims recite combination of features of which Examiner is unable to find a prior art that discloses the claimed features. The most relevant prior the examiner has found is:
Manico et al, US Pub No: 2017/0351417 A1, teaches Technologies for automated context-aware media curation include a computing device that captures context data associated with media objects. The context data may include location data, proximity data, behavior data of the user, and social activity data. The computing device generates inferred context data using one or more cognitive or machine learning algorithms. The inferred context data may include semantic time or location data, activity data, or sentiment data. The computing device updates a user context model and an expanded media object graph based on the context data and the inferred context data. The computing device selects one or more target media objects using the user context model and the expanded media object graph. The computing device may present context-aware media experiences to the user with the target media objects. Context-aware media experiences may include contextual semantic search and contextual media browsing. Other embodiments are described and claimed
Nachman et al, US Pub No: 2017/0091628 A1, teaches Data points, calendar entries, trends, behavioral patterns may be used to predict and pre-emptively build digital and printable products with selected collections of images without the user's active participation. The collections are selected from files on the user's device, cloud-based photo library, or other libraries shared among other individuals and grouped into thematic products. Based on analysis of the user's collections and on-line behaviors, the system may estimate types and volumes of potential media-centric products, and the resources needed for producing and distributing such media-centric products for a projected period of time. A user interface may take the form of a “virtual curator”, which is a graphical or animated persona for augmenting and managing interactions between the user and the system managing the user's stored media assets. The virtual curator can assume one of many personas, as appropriate, with each user. For example, the virtual curator can be presented as an avatar-animated character in an icon, or icon that floats around the screen. The virtual curator can also interact with the user via text messaging, or audio messaging.
AS thus, claims 1-20 recite subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the Applicant were to be able to overcome the claim rejection under 35 USC § 101 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Muriqi, US Pub No: 2024/0046318 A1, teaches A user interface system is provided, comprising a content display output for presentation of content to a user; a communication network interface port; and at least one automated processor configured to: receive at least one hyperlink in a social network record of a social network; request content associated with the hyperlink; receive an advertisement associated with at least one of the user, the social network record, the hyperlink, and the content; verify presentation of the advertisement to the user; present the content to the user; and account for presentation of the advertisement to the user, by crediting at least one account distinct from an account associated with the user, an account associated with a content owner, and an account associated with a social network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights