DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
1. Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination and Amendment to the Claims filed March 27, 2026 are received and entered.
2. Claims 26 – 49 are newly added. Claims 1 – 49 are pending and are under examination in this action.
3. 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(b)
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
5. Claims 1 – 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 24, and 25, the recitations of “a second content item” followed by “one or more second content items” is indefinite for at least the following reasons. It is unclear whether the singular “a second content item” is included as the “one or more second content items” or whether it is separate and apart from the “one or more second content items”. This lack of clarity is partially due to the order in which these elements are introduced in the claims.
For example, if the claims were amended to first include “one or more second content items”, then Applicant could subsequently refer to “a first second content item of the one or more content items” or “one of the one or more second content items”. Either of these recitations, as well as countless other examples, would clearly differentiate between “a second content item” and “one or more second content items”, as required by claims 1, 24, and 25.
For at least these reasons, these claims are indefinite.
Regarding claim 25, this claim is directed to both a and method steps of using the apparatus and are therefore indefinite. See IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also, Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
Claim 25 is directed to both an apparatus and a method based on requiring the physical structure of a computer readable storage medium (lines 1 – 3) and method steps (lines 4 – 22) simultaneously. A recitation claiming both an apparatus and a method simultaneously is indefinite.
Regarding claims 2 – 23 and 26 – 49, these claims are rejected based on their respective dependence from claims 1, 24, and 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 25 and 38 – 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 25, this claim is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to neither a "process" nor a "machine," but rather embracing / overlapping two different statutory classes for at least the reasons stated above with regard to the rejection of this claim under 35 USC 112. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548, 1551 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
Regarding claims 38 – 49, these claims are rejected based on their dependence from claim 25.
Pertinent Prior Art
8. The closest prior art during a search of the claimed invention includes: Agrawal et al. (U.S. Pub. 2024/0231741), Park et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0397332), Mavrody (U.S. Pub. 2014/0289668), Maule et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0350639), Zaghetto et al. (U.S. Pub. 2024/0355004), Rojas-Echenique et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0373322), Pastrana Vicente et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0100270), Keller et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0360278), Pastra Vicente 2 et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0121344), Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0342590), Woo et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0146677), Zuo (U.S. Pub. 2024/0214521), Fukushima et al. (U.S. Pub. 2009/0115902), Trotter et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0255386), Elff (U.S. Pub. 2023/0276189), Djuric (U.S. Pub. 2023/0298242), Depies et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0264936), and Faulkner (U.S. Pub. 2018/0249113).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LUBIT whose telephone number is (571)270-3389. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, ~6am - 3pm.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/RYAN A LUBIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights