DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the following communication: Request for Continued Examination filed on 12 January 2026.
Claim(s) 51-53, 55-63, and 65-72 is/are pending and present for examination. Claim(s) 51 and 61 is/are in independent form.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 51, 56, 57, 61, 66, 67, 71, and 72 have been amended.
Claims 54 and 64 have been cancelled.
No claims have been newly added.
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 51-53, 55-63, and 65-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 51 and 61, the claim(s) recite(s) in part “identifying a first user profile”, “monitoring a second user profile”, “determining… a respective time that each media asset of the plurality of media assets was consumed”, “determining that each respective time is within a threshold amount of time from a current time,” and “ranking the plurality of media assets.”
The aforementioned limitations directed towards are interpreted to be the observation or judgment which may be taken by a user. Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “device” and “control circuity” in claims 51 and 61, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
For example, the “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally evaluating and identifying user profiles. For example, “monitoring a second user profile” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally evaluating and determining whether a profile is related to another profile. For example, “determining… a respective time that each media assets of the plurality of media assets was consumed” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining the a time when a media asset was consumed. For example, “determining that each respective time is within a threshold amount of time from a current time” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining if a time is within a threshold amount of time from the current time. For example, “ranking the plurality of media assets” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining the different in time of consumption and the current time for each of the media assets. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition to the claim limitations, which were determined to recite concepts identified as abstract ideas, certain elements of claim 1 also constitute insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In particular, the claim recites "receiving, via a graphical user interface (GUI) of a device, an input to access a personalized media platform." This limitation reasonably can be characterized as merely constituting the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering:
“An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The Federal Circuit has held that data gathering steps "cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory." CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). In this case, the pre-solution activity of storing a unified contextual graph for analysis may be considered a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process such as resolving conflicting attributes. This is highly analogous with the example provided above regarding insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering
Additionally, the claimed feature of “generating, for display on the GUI of the device, an interface of the personalized media platform, the interface comprising recommendations of the plurality of media assets based at least in part on the ranking” is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., necessary data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). At step 2A, prong two, considering these limitations individually and the claim as a whole, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The elements directed to “receiving” and “generating” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
Under step 2A, Prong 2, of the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg., we determine whether any of the additional elements beyond the abstract idea integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54; MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05. The 2019 Guidance provides exemplary considerations that are indicative of an additional element or combination of elements integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by additional elements. In particular, the claim recites using a processor to perform the steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
At Step 2B, all claim elements, with the exception of the processor and memory, correspond to concepts determined to be abstract ideas for the reasons discussed above in connection with Prong One of the analysis and/or merely constitute extra-solution activity under Prong Two. Applicant's lack of a detailed disclosure of computer hardware or functional requirements and the lack of details describing a computer-specific implementation of the recited functions (such as might have been indicated by inclusion of a detailed flow chart depicting unconventional computer operations and/or routines for performing each of the claimed steps), persuades us that the omitted details are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum, the claims merely recite generic computer components performing generic computing functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. 5 See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (The "use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are 'well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]' previously known to the industry.") ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71-73); see also Benson, 409
U.S. at 65 (Noting that a "computer operates then upon both new and previously stored data. The general-purpose computer is designed to perform operations under many different programs."); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that using generic computing components like a microprocessor or user interface does not transform an otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (indicating components such as an "interface" are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (citing Alice and Mayo) accord Berkheimer Memo 3-4.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computing of measures only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). The claims provide that the measures may be computed by program code that may be stored in memory. Therefore, the computing is nothing more than what can be handled by a conventional search engine and does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
As per claims 52, 53, 62, and 63, the limitations are directed towards “ranking a first media asset” and are interpreted to be the observation or judgment about an association between profiles, therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
As per claims 55-57 and 65-67, the limitations are directed towards “wherein the generating… is performed in response to determining that each of the plurality of media assets was consumed within a threshold time period from the current time” and are interpreted to be the observation or judgment regarding an analysis of the consumption time, therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Furthermore, the claimed features directed to further defining “the threshold time period”, “a cost to consume each of the plurality of media assets”, and whether the media asset “has not been already consumed” are interpreted to be an observation or judgement. Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
As per claims 58, 59, 68, and 69, the limitations are directed towards “monitoring the second profile” and are interpreted to be the observation or judgment regarding a profile, therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
As per claims 60 and 70, wherein automatically downloading the media asset is an additional element beyond the above identified judicial exception. These additional elements represent mere extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provide only insignificant extra solution activity that is mere data processing in conjunction with the abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because having an application transmit data only adds well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As per claims 71 and 72, the limitations are directed towards “identifying a media asset previously consumed” and “refraining from ranking the media asset” are interpreted to be the observation or judgment about an association between profiles, therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Furthermore, it is noted that “refraining from ranking the media asset” and “refraining from generating… a recommendation for the media asset” are considered negative limitations in that neither ranking nor refraining are executed.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims are allowable over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant asserts the argument that “the amended claim “cannot practically be performed in the human mind”” and “the human mind is not equipped to receive an input to access a personalized media platform and automatically, without receiving further input, generate for display an interface of the personalized media platform.” See Amendment, page 8. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. However, this argument fails to establish that the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea. It is noted that the amended limitations are directed to insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activities. These are precisely the types of insignificant extra-solution activities the courts and the USPTO have found insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The use of a computer to receive input and automatically display content, without more, is nothing more than instructing a computer to perform its basic, well-understood, and conventional functions. The automation of what could be done manually, or with minimal human interaction, does not confer eligibility.
Moreover, there is no recitation in the claim how the input is processed in a novel way, nor how the interface generation is tied to any technological improvement. The claim does not describe any inventive mechanism or implementation that improves computer performance or alters the way the media platform operates. Instead, it merely recites a sequence of generic steps for triggering and displaying a personalized interface, which falls squarely within the category of abstract idea implementation.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the amended limitations are insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activities and do not rise to the level of “significantly more” under Alice Step 2B.
Secondly, Applicant asserts the argument that “Applicant’s amended independent claims are patent-eligible at least because of their similarities to the subject matter of claim 1 of Example 37 published by the USPTO, which was deemed to be patent-eligible.” See Amendment, page 8. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the instant claimed invention is distinguishable from Example 37. The claims found eligible in Example 37 recite a specific technological improvement in a graphical user interface that allows users to more efficiently navigate and search a relational database. By contrast, the applicant’s claim here merely automates the process of recommending content based on the activity of related users, a task that reflects a conventional personalization technique rather than a technological improvement. The generation and display of recommendations is a routine application of filtering or correlating user behavior, and no specific improvement to a user interface or underlying computer system is claimed.
Furthermore, the claim lacks technical implementation details. The manner in which media recommendations are generated and displayed is claimed at a high level of generality, without reciting any novel data structures, algorithms, or interface logic that would amount to a non-abstract improvement. The claim does not improve the operation of the computer, nor does it recite any inventive mechanism for associating user profiles, accessing the media content, or controlling how the recommendation interface is generated. Instead, it simply recites a desired result which is a functional outcome and not a claimed technical solution.
Accordingly, the amendments fail to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Paul Kim/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2152
/PK/