DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to claims filed 09/24/2026 and Applicant’s communication regarding application 18/671,523 filed 09/24/2026.
Claims 1-20 have been examined with this office action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of predicting future performance of the asset of the user portfolio based on consumable media content without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v.CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. _ (2014) as provided by the interim guidelines FR 12/16/2014 Vol. 79 No. 241.
Analysis
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. In this case independent claim 1 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward a method, and independent claim 12 and all claims which depend from it are directed toward an apparatus and independent claim 20 all claims which depend from it are directed toward a computer program product computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing software instructions to perform functions/steps. As such, all claims fall within one of the four categories of invention deemed to be the appropriate subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1, Under Step 2 A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised § 101 Guidance, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) by identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites abstract idea(s); and then determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG.
Specifically, claim 1 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “ A method for simulating future asset performance based on consumable media content, the method comprising: monitoring, by content monitoring circuitry and using an integrated plugin configured to detect media content, a port of a user device for receipt of a data stream comprising the media content, wherein the integrated plugin and the port are associated with an application rendering the media content on the user device, wherein the integrated plugin is installed on the user device and integrated into the application; receiving, by communications hardware, a simulation request requesting a prediction model for an asset of a user portfolio based on the media content; determining, by simulation circuitry and based on the data stream, a first keyword and a first weight; generating, by the simulation circuitry and using the prediction model, the first keyword, and the first weight, a prediction model output indicating future performance of the asset of the user portfolio based on the media content and historical data; generating, by natural language circuitry and based on the prediction model output, a natural language report representative of the future performance of the asset of the user portfolio; and transmitting, by the communications hardware, the natural language report to the user device”.
Claim 12 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “An apparatus for simulating future asset performance based on consumable media content, the apparatus comprising: content monitoring circuitry configured to monitor, using an integrated plugin configured to detect media content, a port of a user device for receipt of a data stream comprising the media content, wherein the integrated plugin and the port are associated with an application rendering the media content on the user device, wherein the integrated plugin is installed on the user device and integrated into the application; communications hardware configured to receive a simulation request requesting a prediction model for an asset of a user portfolio based on the media content; simulation circuitry configured to: determine, based on the data stream, a first keyword and a first weight, and generate, using the prediction model, the first keyword, and the first weight, a prediction model output indicating future performance of the asset of the user portfolio based on the media content and historical data; natural language circuitry configured to generate, based on the prediction model output, a natural language report representative of the future performance of the asset of the user portfolio; and transmit, by the communications hardware, the natural language report to the user device”.
Claim 20 comprises inter alia the functions or steps of “A computer program product for simulating future asset performance based on consumable media content, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause an apparatus to: monitor, using an integrated plugin configured to detect media content, a port of a user device for receipt of a data stream comprising the media content, wherein the integrated plugin and the port are associated with an application rendering the media content on the user device, wherein the integrated plugin is installed on the user device and integrated into the application; receive a simulation request requesting a prediction model for an asset of a user portfolio based on the media content; determine, based on the data stream, a first keyword and a first weight; generate, using the prediction model, the first keyword, and the first weight, a prediction model output indicating future performance of the asset of the user portfolio based on the media content and historical data; generate, based on the prediction model output, a natural language report representative of the future performance of the asset of the user portfolio; and transmit the natural language report to the user device”.
Those claim limits in bold are identified as claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, while those that are un-bolded are identified as additional elements.
The cited limitations as drafted are systems and methods that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a method of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Predicting performance of the asset of the user portfolio based on consumable media content is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Next, it is determined whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The mere introduction of a computer or generic computer technology into the claims need not alter the analysis. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223—24. “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
In the present case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way.
In particular, the claims contain the following additional elements: content monitoring circuitry by content monitoring circuitry using a plugin, a port of a user device wherein the plugin and the port are associated with an application rendering the media content on the user device wherein the integrated plugin is installed on the user device and integrated into the application; a user device; communications hardware; simulation circuitry; natural language circuitry; an apparatus; a computer program product; at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing software instructions. However, the specification description of the additional elements content monitoring circuitry by content monitoring circuitry using a plugin, a port of a user device wherein the plugin and the port are associated with an application rendering the media content on the user device wherein the integrated plugin is installed on the user device and integrated into the application ([Figure 2, element 208] [0048-0048] [0005] “…Some example embodiments described herein may comprise a software plugin (and/or the like as described herein) installed on one or more user devices (e.g., mobile device, televisions, etc.) of a user's Personal Internet of Things (PloT) that may be used to identify media content for further analysis. For example, the user may interact with the software plugin, across their PloT, while ingesting news articles, videos, podcasts, and/or any other digital media content as described herein in order to request more information and receive personalized reports…” [0007] “One advantage is that example embodiments provide an improvement to the functionality available to a PloT and/or individual user devices. Example embodiments may accomplish this by incorporating a software plugin ( or the like as described herein) across one or more user devices to monitor open ports (e.g., network ports, software ports, etc.) for media content ingested by a user…” [0088] “…In some embodiments, open ports and/or media content (or media content identifiers) may be indicated to the software plugin ( or the like) by one or more applications installed on the user device. In some embodiments, open ports may be associated with one or more applications installed on the user device. In some embodiments, the operation 508 may include listening, using the software plugin (or the like), to network traffic through one or more open ports locally at the user device and periodically transmitting (e.g., using the communications hardware 306) network traffic data to the content monitoring circuitry 208. In some embodiments, the software plugin (or the like) may monitor a communications network access point (e.g., router, etc.) of a PloT…”);
a user device ([Figure 1, elements 106A-106N] [0034]); communications hardware ([Figure 2, element 206] [0042-0043]); simulation circuitry ([Figure 2, element 210] [0049-0052]); natural language circuitry ([Figure 2, element 212] [0048-0061]); an apparatus ([Figure 2, element 200] [0038-0044]); a computer program product ([0068] [0129]); at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing software instructions ([0068]) ([0058]) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Further, none of the limitations recite technological implementations details for any of the steps but, instead, only recite broad functional language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaning limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exaction using a generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exertion using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at a high level of generality to perform their basic functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use (Specification as cited above for additional elements) and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP § 2106.05 I. A. iii, 2106.05(b), 2106.05(b) III, 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 4, 10, 15, and 19 these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 2, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, 14, and 16-18, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea using previously identified additional elements noted from the respective independent claims from which they depend. In addition, the cited dependent claims recite the additional elements:
transmitting, by the communications hardware to at least the user device of the one or more user devices, executable software instructions for installing a software plugin associated with the predictive advisement system; receiving, by the communications hardware, one or more port identifiers representative of open ports of the user device, wherein the open ports are associated with one or more media applications installed on the user device; and monitoring, by the content monitoring circuitry, the open ports of the user device for network traffic indicative of the data stream comprising the media content, wherein the software plugin listens to the open ports locally at the user device and periodically transmit network traffic data to the content monitoring circuitry (claims 2 and 13);
software plugin (claims 3 and 14);
machine learning models (claims 5 and 16).
training input variables into / an input layer of / a neural network (claims 8-11 and 16-19).
a media server (claims 6 and 16).
retrieving, by the communications hardware, an audio track of the media content, and processing, by the simulation circuitry, the audio track with a language model comprising a speech recognition algorithm to generate the transcript (claims 7 and 16).
However, the specification description of the additional elements transmitting, by the communications hardware to at least the user device of the one or more user devices, executable software instructions for installing a software plugin associated with the predictive advisement system; receiving, by the communications hardware, one or more port identifiers representative of open ports of the user device, wherein the open ports are associated with one or more media applications installed on the user device; and monitoring, by the content monitoring circuitry, the open ports of the user device for network traffic indicative of the data stream comprising the media content, wherein the software plugin listens to the open ports locally at the user device and periodically transmit network traffic data to the content monitoring circuitry ([0088] “…In addition, the software plugin ( or the like) may record ( or capture) a media content identifier associated with the documentary or news broadcast, such as an application-specific link (or the like) for a video streaming application. In some embodiments, the software plugin ( or the like) may monitor the user interface circuitry 310 of the apparatus 300 for user inputs indicating media content of interest. For example, as a user browses the Internet for news articles related to a particular current event, the user (via the software plugin (or the like)) may identify one or more news articles of interest to the user. In addition, the software plugin ( or the like) may record ( or capture) a media content identifier associated with each news article, such as a URL. In some embodiments, open ports and/or media content (or media content identifiers) may be indicated to the software plugin ( or the like) by one or more applications installed on the user device. In some embodiments, open ports may be associated with one or more applications installed on the user device. In some embodiments, the operation 508 may include listening, using the software plugin (or the like), to network traffic through one or more open ports locally at the user device and periodically transmitting (e.g., using the communications hardware 306) network traffic data the content monitoring circuitry 208. In some embodiments, the software plugin (or the like) may monitor a communications network access point (e.g., router, etc.) of a PloT”);
software plugin (see at least [0088] Note that the specification does not detail the specifics of the software plugin but, instead, merely describes the functional result of using the software plugin);
machine learning models ([0037] [0075]).
training input variables into / an input layer of / a neural network ([0115] [0120]).
a media server ([0102]).
retrieving, by the communications hardware, an audio track of the media content, and processing, by the simulation circuitry, the audio track with a language model comprising a speech recognition algorithm to generate the transcript ([0048] [0094] [0103]) are at a high level of generality using exemplary language or as part of a generic technological environment and are functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the cited dependent claims are ineligible.
Prior Art
The claims overcome the prior art of record such that none of the cited prior art reference’s disclosures can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC § 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC § 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims. The closest prior art Wu (PGPub Document No. 20240144373) in view of Forde (PGPub Document No. 20180316650) does not singly or in any proper combination, do not disclose and would not have rendered obvious "monitoring, by content monitoring circuitry and using an integrated plugin configured to detect media content, a port of a user device for receipt of a data stream comprising the media content, wherein the integrated plugin and the port are associated with an application rendering the media content on the user device, wherein the integrated plugin is installed on the user device and integrated into the application," as recited in the independent claims. The cited references do not disclose using an integrated plugin configured to detect media content, wherein the integrated plugin and the port are associated with an application rendering the media content on the user device, wherein the integrated plugin is installed on the user device and integrated into the application Therefore, the claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with regards to patent eligibility have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT REMARKS CONCERNING Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101: Applicant's arguments with regards to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding arguments directed toward Step 2A, Prong One that “none of the limitations recited in amended claim 1 can properly be characterized as a practice that is long prevalent principle or practice in our system of commerce”, the examiner disagrees. Predicting performance of the asset of the user portfolio based on consumable media content is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in commerce systems. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic principle or practice but for the general linking to a technological environment, then it falls within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding arguments directed toward Step 2A, prong two, that the “claimed solutions provide a specific technical solution that addresses a concrete technical problem in predictive performance analysis systems. As described at paragraphs [0007]-[0008] of the original Specification”, the examiner disagrees. Paragraphs [0007]-[0008] describe a business solution to a business problem involving predicting performance of the asset of the user portfolio based on consumable media content. The plugin as described in the specification is merely software which interacts with a PLoT (Personal Internet of Things) to gain access to data being transmitted to the user’s device. Paragraph [0007] stated functional objective “improvement to the functionality available to a PloT and/or individual user devices” is, thus, merely software (a plugin application) which implements the stated abstract ideas of “asset performance analysis” and "provide a computational ability to predict the interplay and/or influence between two or more current events when such influence may otherwise be undetectable for a human user and/or beyond the original scope of identified media content". The improvement is to the execution of the abstract idea. Note that the monitoring of the port is not claimed as being performed by the plugin. As is known in the art, the PloT performs this function. The fact that the specific media content and user portfolio information associated with a particular user is performed in real-time (Arguments bottom of page 19) merely means that software has been performed to execute the functional objectives. Thus, there is no improvement to a technology or to a technical fields (Arguments pare 20). Regarding applicant’s argument that “the additional elements¹ integrate any alleged abstract ideas into specific and practical applications by reducing, or eliminating, subjective personal biases (and/or emotional reactions) associated with a human advisor/analyst "because the natural language reports may be provided by AI systems (e.g., a Large Language Model (LLM), etc.), such reports may provide a more objective interpretation of the quantitative data and/or qualitative data pertinent to the user”, the LLM is merely applied to the abstract idea of the claims in order to obtain the functional objective of “reducing, or eliminating, subjective personal biases (and/or emotional reactions) associated with a human advisor/analyst”. There is no improvement to LLM models recited in the claims. Regarding applicant's arguments alleging the lack of prior art as evidence the claims contain an improvement and therefore are significantly more, this argument-sounding in § 102 novelty-is beside the point for a §101 inquiry. See Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., No. 1: 10cv910 (LMB/TRJ), 2014 WL 5430956, at *11 (E.D. Va. Oct. 24, 2014) ("The concern of § 101 is not novelty, but preemption.").
Conclusion
For prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure see Notice of References Cited item A submitted 07/27/2026 used as prior art and in the conclusion section in the office action submitted 07/27/2026.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory A Pollock whose telephone number is (571) 270-1465. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571 270-1836. 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.
/Gregory A Pollock/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
09/29/2026
Prosecution Insights