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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Previous Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 to Claims 1, 4, 7, 17, 21 and 22 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment filed on 02/25/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The claim amendment to independent claims 1, 21 and 22 does not overcome a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The claim amendment helps, but it does not add enough specific, technical, non-abstract improvement to computer functionality to satisfy Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B.
Step 2A, Prong One Is still directed to an Abstract Idea.
The core of the claim remains collecting user data, representing it as vectors, comparing vectors using distance or projection, selecting visual indications, displaying them in an interface. This is still an abstract idea under USPTO Groupings of Mathematical concepts (vector spaces, distances, projections), Mental processes (selecting indications based on similarity), Methods of organizing human activity (personalized content selection). The vector space language does not change the characterization because it is still a mathematical representation of information, which the USPTO explicitly treats as abstract.
Step 2A Prong Two does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The amendment helps, but the claim does not add a structured vector space, metadata categories as dimension or scores for each component. The amendment is not enough because these are generic mathematical operations performed on generic user data, there is no improvement to computer functionality and the claim does not recite a specific technical solution (e.g., a new data structure, new training method, new vector-construction algorithm, new projection technique etc.).
Step 2B provides no inventive concept
The claim uses generic computing, generic vector math, generic content metadata, generic selection logic, generic display of results. There is no unconventional arrangement of components, no new algorithm, no new data structure, and no improvement to computer operation.
The amendment strengthens the claim, but does not overcome the 101 Rejection. Applicant needs to add specific technical improvements, not just mathematical structure. Example of amendments that do work if supported by the specification are new data structure that reduces memory footprint, new vector generation technique that improves accuracy or latency, new projection or similarity computation that reduces computational load, specific user interface rendering improvements that reduces bandwidth or improve device performance, technical constraints (e.g., mobile device limitations, distributed computation, GPU optimization). Right now, the claim reads like a standard recommender system comparison, which is well-known and abstract.
Regarding claims 2-20, the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the merely provide additional insignificant extrasolution activities/steps gathering user activity and selecting visual indication based on the user’s data are essential part of the abstract idea.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Step 1: Judicial Exception (Abstract Idea) – Claims 1, 21, 22 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter, namely an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One: Recitation of an Abstract Idea - Claims 1, 21 and 22 recites a series of steps that constitute collecting, analyzing, and presenting information, which has been consistently held to be an abstract idea. These claims recites “obtaining user data…”; “obtaining metadata…:”; “selecting one or more…”; “displaying the selected…”. These claim limitations collectively recite:
Collecting information (obtaining user data and metadata),
Analyzing and comparing information (selecting visual indications based on the data), and
Presenting information (displaying the selected visual indications).
Such activities fall within the category of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity, which are abstract ideas. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Practical Application – Claims 1, 21 and 22 do not integrate the abstract idea using generic computer components to perform routine functions, including: obtaining data, processing metadata, selecting information, and displaying information in a user interface. The claims do not recite any: improvement to computer functionality, specific technical solution to a technical problem, particular data structure, specialized algorithm, or unconventional user interface mechanism. Rather, the claims merely automates a conventional information selection and presentation process using a generic computer. Displaying selected information “as part of a content selection interface” represents a conventional graphical user interface function and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept – The additional elements of claims 1, 21 and 22, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims generically recites: a “computer-implemented method”; obtaining and processing “user data”; obtaining “metadata”; selecting information; and displaying results. These elements represent well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activities routinely performed in content recommendation and interface systems. The claim does not recite: a specific technological architecture, a novel data processing technique, an unconventional interaction between system components, or any technical improvement to computer systems. Instead, the claim merely uses a computer as a tool to implement an abstract information selection and display process.
Regarding claims 2-20, the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the merely provide additional insignificant extrasolution activities/steps gathering user activity and selecting visual indication based on the user’s data are essential part of the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hunter et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0118788).
Regarding claim 1, Hunter et al. discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining user data for a user, wherein the user data comprises or represents user activity and/or content metadata associated with user activity (see paragraphs 0020-0021, 0027; tiles personalized for a user based on preferences, popularity, ratings, and viewership information);
obtaining metadata and/or one or more other properties associated with a plurality of visual indications associated with a content item (see paragraphs 0020-0022, figs. 3-9, fig. 10 (steps 1007-1009); generating tiles corresponding to content, each tile being a visual indication (still image, logo, live video). Multiple tiles can be associated with the same content item, each with metadata (ratings, popularity, subscription info));
selecting one or more of the plurality of visual indications based on at least the user data and the visual indication metadata and/or the one or more other properties of the visual indication (see paragraphs 0020-0021, 0027, fig. 10 (steps 1005-1009); selecting content tiles using user characteristics information, generating multiple tiles, and providing selection options. Tiles are selected based on user preferences and metadata (ratings, popularity, subscription info)); and
displaying the selected one or more visual indications, for example, as part of a content selection interface (see paragraphs 0004, 0020-0022, figs. 3-9, fig. 10 (step 1011); presenting tiles to the user in a content interface).
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Hunter et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hunter et al. discloses wherein the metadata and/or the one or more properties associated with the plurality of visual indications represent or are indicative of at least one of: an identity of a visual event (see paragraphs 0020-0021, figs. 3-9; genre-based tiles (comedy, drama, entertainment news) indicate theme/mood categories).
Regarding claim 3, Hunter et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hunter et al. discloses wherein the visual indications comprise at least one of an image, sequence of images, video (see paragraphs 0004, 0020, figs. 3-9; Tiles may be still images, icons, logos).
Regarding claim 7, Hunter et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hunter et al. discloses wherein the plurality of visual indications are obtained from a third party, for example, a content provider or other data provider (see paragraphs 0023, 0026, fig. 1) and processed to assign first party metadata, for example, metadata from a content distribution system and/or middleware operator (see paragraphs 0026, 0027, 0030 and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Hunter et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hunter et al. discloses wherein the method comprises performing a matching process between the user data and the visual indication metadata to identify matched or common metadata and selecting the visual indication based on said matched or common metadata (see paragraphs 0020, 0027, figs. 3-9, fig. 10 (step 1005, 1011)).
Regarding claim 12, Hunter et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hunter et al. discloses wherein the selection of the visual indication is dependent on a priority score for a content item or the visual indication (see paragraphs 0020, 0027, figs. 3-9; tiles may be personalized for a user based on popularity, ratings, social networking buzz) and/or on current or predicted system performance and/or on a user engagement score for the content item and/or for the visual indication (see paragraphs 0020, 0027, figs. 3-9; tiles may be personalized for a user based on popularity, ratings, social networking buzz).
Regarding claim 13, Hunter et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hunter et al. discloses wherein the selection of the visual indication is performed in dependence on one or more of:
a system performance metric (see paragraphs 0024-0025; encoder farm 171 processes media content into multiple encoding formats and data rates to support different devices and networks)
a prediction of system performance or system load
a performance metric of a content selection interface.
Regarding claim 16, Hunter et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hunter et al. discloses wherein the method comprises determining whether to display a default image or to select one or more visual indication based on at least one of: a user engagement metric (see paragraphs 0020, 0027), a priority score (see paragraphs 0020, 0027) and/or system performance metric.
Regarding claim 17, Hunter et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hunter et al. discloses wherein the metadata comprises or represents one or more content parameters, properties and/or characteristics (see paragraphs 0020, 0027, 0030, figs. 3-9), for example, at least one of: program title, time, duration, content type, program categorisation, actor names, genre, release data, episode number, series number, style, mood, language and theme (see paragraph 0020, 0023, 0026, 0030, figs. 3-9; program title, time, genre, episode/series, categorization, and mood/theme proxies).
Regarding claim 18, Hunter et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hunter et al. discloses wherein the user data may be representative of one or more preferences of the user and selecting the visual indication is based on said one or more preferences, optionally, wherein the one or more preferences are determined based on historical content engagement data collected for the user (see paragraphs 0020, 0027, 0030, fig. 10 (step 1003, 1005)).
Regarding claim 19, Hunter et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hunter et al. discloses obtaining a group of content item recommendation candidates and wherein the method further comprises selecting a visual indication for one or more of the content item recommendation candidates based on metadata and/or one or more properties of the visual indication (see paragraphs 0020-0021, 0026-0027, 0030, 0039, figs. 3-10).
Regarding claim 20, Hunter et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 19). Hunter et al. discloses wherein the visual indication selection is performed for a subset of content item recommendation candidates based on a priority score and/or current or predicted system performance and/or an engagement metric (see paragraphs 0020, 0024-0025, 0027, 0030).
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wright et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0351654).
Regarding claim 4, Hunter et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hunter et al. discloses wherein the method further comprises performing one or more visual indication processing procedures (see paragraphs 0024 and fig. 1; processing procedures (encoding/transcoding) applied to visual indications (video streams, clips), to obtain the metadata and/or one or more other properties for the plurality of visual indications (see paragraphs 0020, 0027, 0030, fig. 10 (step 1007); guide generator compiles viewership information in real-time to generate metadata such as “most-watched program content”). Hunter et al. teaches processing procedure in paragraphs 0024, 0030, figs. 3-9 i.e., encoding, caching, formatting.
However, Hunter et al. is silent as to image processing procedure.
Wright et al. discloses image processing procedure (see paragraphs 0079, 0084, fig. 3-4; image processing/image generation engine).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hunter et al. with the teachings of Wright et al., the motivation being to provide accuracy.
Regarding claim 5, Hunter et al. and Wright et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 4). Wright et al. discloses wherein the visual indication processing procedures comprise at least one: an object and/or facial recognition procedure and/or a mood and/or theme and/or sentiment detection procedure (see paragraph 0084).
Regarding claim 6, Hunter et al. and Wright et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 4). Hunter et al. discloses wherein the visual indication procedure comprises processing said plurality of visual indications to identify one or more metadata properties from a pre-determined set of properties (see paragraph 0020, 0027, figs. 3-9) and, optionally, storing said one or more identified properties as metadata for the visual indication (see paragraphs 0030, 0027, fig. 2).
Wright et al. discloses image processing procedure (see paragraphs 0079, 0084, fig. 3-4; image processing/image generation engine).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patadia et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0319505).
Regarding claim 8, Hunter et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hunter et al. discloses wherein the plurality of visual indications are obtained together with metadata from a third party (see paragraphs 0023, 0026 and fig. 1; obtaining visual indications (tiles, streams, program info) together with metadata from third-party content providers) and wherein the method comprises processing the set of visual indications and wherein the selection of the visual indication is based on the enriched and/or expanded metadata (see paragraphs 0020, 0027, fig. 10 (step 1005, 1007)).
However, Hunter et al. is silent as to enrich and/or expand third party metadata.
Patadia et al. discloses enrich and/or expand third party metadata (see paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hunter et al. with the teachings of Patadia et al., the motivation being to improve data.
Claim 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghoshal et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0012268).
Regarding claim 10, Hunter et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). However, Hunter et al. is silent as to wherein the user data is represented as a feature vector in a vector space and the method comprises representing the one or more visual indications as vectors in the same vector space, wherein the selection process is based on determining a distance between or a measure of overlap or projection between the user vector and the vectors representing the one or more visual indications.
Ghoshal et al. discloses wherein the user data is represented as a feature vector in a vector space and the method comprises representing the one or more visual indications as vectors in the same vector space, wherein the selection process is based on determining a distance between or a measure of overlap or projection between the user vector and the vectors representing the one or more visual indications (see paragraphs 0110, 0137, 0285).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hunter et al. with the teachings of Ghoshal et al., the motivation being to optimize the matching process.
Regarding claim 11, Hunter et al. and Ghoshal et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 10). Ghoshal et al. discloses determining a measure of overlap and/or projection between the feature vector for the user and the visual indication vectors and wherein the selection is based on the measure of distance and/or overlap and/or projection (see paragraphs 0124, 0400).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sahasi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0133275).
Regarding claim 14, Hunter et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hunter et al. discloses tiles personalization based on user preferences, user characteristics, social networking buzz, popularity, ratings in paragraph 0020, 0027.
However, Hunter et al. is silent as to wherein the metadata and/or other property of the visual indication comprises a user engagement score representing previous user engagement with the content item for the visual indication and wherein the selection of the user engagement is based on said user engagement score.
Sahasi et al. discloses wherein the metadata and/or other property of the visual indication comprises a user engagement score representing previous user engagement with the content item for the visual indication and wherein the selection of the user engagement is based on said user engagement score (see paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hunter et al. with the teachings of Sahasi et al., the motivation being to optimize the matching process.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0315781).
Regarding claim 15, Hunter et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). Hunter et al. discloses tiles personalization based on user preferences, user characteristics, social networking buzz, popularity, ratings in paragraph 0020, 0027.
However, Hunter et al. is silent as to tracking user engagement for a content item dependent on the visual indication presented to the user and storing a score for each visual indication representing said user engagement, wherein the selection of the image is based on said user engagement score.
Huang et al. discloses tracking user engagement for a content item dependent on the visual indication presented to the user and storing a score for each visual indication representing said user engagement, wherein the selection of the image is based on said user engagement score (see paragraphs 0005, 0126).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hunter et al. with the teachings of Huang et al., the motivation being to optimize the matching process.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NNENNA NGOZI EKPO whose telephone number is (571)270-1663. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 10:00am - 6:30pm, TH-F 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
NNENNA EKPO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/NNENNA N EKPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 April 17, 2026.
Prosecution Insights