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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/06/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 11, 21-22 have been amended. Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20-22 are pending.
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 11-18, 20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 11 is directed to “a system comprising: control circuitry.”
Definition of circuitry - 1: the detailed plan or arrangement of an electric circuit; 2: the components of an electric circuit; 3: the network of interconnected neurons in the nervous system and especially the brain (see Merriam-Webster or any other dictionary). In view of the definition (1) circuitry can be a logical detailed plan or arrangement and thus, not tangible or (3) a components of the human mind, and thus, not statutory.
The specification does not provide an exact definition for the claimed “control circuitry” and instead states - “Control circuitry 304 may be used to send and receive commands, requests, and other suitable data using I/O path 302” [0062]; “control circuitry 304 may send a signal” [0058]. Thus, it is not clear of the “control circuitry” is a tangible, logical component (i.e. software or a hardware element) and whether or not it’s includes signals, such as “may be transitory, including, but not limited to, propagating electrical or electromagnetic signals” (disclosed in the specification paragraph [0059]). One of ordinary skill in the art reading the claim may reasonably conclude that the system consist only of software or transitory modules, since no tangible computer hardware, such as a processor and memory, is recited as elements of the claimed system. Software and signals are not in one of the four categories of invention and therefore the claim is not statutory. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588 n.9 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780,787-88 (1876).
It is also noted that the mere recitation of a machine in the preamble in a manner such that the machine fails to patentably limit the scope of the claim does not make the claim statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as seen in the Board of Patent Appeals Informative Opinion Ex parte Langemyr et al. (Appeal 2008-1495), http:llwww.uspto.govlweblofficesldcomlbpailitslfdO814 95.pdf.
Thus, the applicant is required to specify a precise definition of what actually constitutes being a circuitry directly in the claim in order to overcome the rejection and avoid undue arguments.
The dependent claims further carry the same deficiency and likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claims recite limitation –
“adjusting, by the processing circuitry, a play length of a content item in the curated playlist to rectify a discrepancy between the recalculated user proficiency level and the event proficiency level.”
This limitation is not supported by the specification as originally filed. It seems the limitation requires a specific mathematical formula or calculations, which is not disclosed. No details explaining how one of ordinary skill in the art would implement such a limitation were provided in the specification. It is noted, that making assumptions in view of the specification does not provide a proper disclose.
Thus, there is also no teaching of “adjusting, by the processing circuitry, a play length of a content item in the curated playlist to rectify a discrepancy between the recalculated user proficiency level and the event proficiency level.”
The dependent claims further carry the same deficiency and likewise rejected.
◊ The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21-22 disclose limitation “one or more videos received by the processing circuity, to identify one or more characteristics of a user associated with the user profile, are received simultaneously.”
The way the limitation is written, it is not clear of what is actually is being simultaneously received. Paragraph [0079] (published version) teaches “a user device may receive content from multiple cloud resources simultaneously.” Thus, multiple videos can be simultaneously received from multiple sources. However, first - the limitation allows receiving only a single (one) video and second – no source is required. Thus, it is not clear as to exactly with what the one video is being simultaneously received with or from. The way the limitation is written it might seem to require receiving one or more videos to identify simultaneously one or more characteristics, which is not supported by the specification.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-8, 10-18 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherukuri (US 20190121811) in view of Wickenkamp et al. (US 20150379118) and in further view of Wang et al. (US 2018/0361203)(see IDS filed 06/14/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Cherukuri teaches a method comprising:
identifying an upcoming event ([0092] “user may prefer to receive certain type of information … may include … event”, [0117], [0152], [0172], F13: 1324, F14:1404);
determining an event proficiency level for completing the upcoming event ([0139] “(1) personal interests (skill level: personal) (2) professional interests (skill level: high)” etc., [0148] “action may also include the attributes of a skill of python language”);
determining a user proficiency level associated with a user profile ([0098], [0139] “skill rank in terms of professional, personal, hobby or explorer”, [0140] “Each of the hubs have different criteria for the skill level of the person in the activity”, [0193] “skill is identified in one or more user profiles”),
determining one or more tasks for preparation for the upcoming event ([0146] “Projects may be directly created from project guides which provide all or part of the guidance needed to accomplish projects/goals”, [0164]-[0165], [0184] “user may complete activities by performing to do, projects or tasks”) based on:
identifying one or more event keywords associated with the upcoming event ([0130] “processes the user goal through the action verb generator”, [0157], [0188]-[0189], [0193]);
performing a search based on the one or more event keywords ([0046], [0125]);
based on results from the search, determining related words based on at least one of:
a frequency with which the related words appear within a search results page,
whether the related words are used in a same sentence with the one or more event keywords ([0190] “include co-occurrence in textual content, including without limitation presence within the same sentence”), or
a proximity of the related words with the one or more event keywords in the search results ([0190] “semantic relationships found between words based on proximity”);
generating an index of the related words ([0192] “action verb may be used for any indexing process … indexing methods … according to action verbs and/or products that enhance skills”; [0197], [0208] “generating first internet search index may include generating one or more action verbs”);
identifying a corresponding task to each of the indexed related words ([0146] “Projects may be directly created from project guides which provide all or part of the guidance needed to accomplish projects/goals”, [0195] “indexing according to action verbs as relating to benefits and/or purposes listed for a product may present to a user that enhances skills”, [0196]-[0198]);
for each indexed related word, determining a number of instances where the indexed related word points to an event keyword ([0095]-[0096], [0199]);
rating the corresponding task based on the number of instances ([0096], [0199], [0201]); and
selecting one or more tasks based on at least one of a rating of a corresponding task, the event proficiency level, or the user proficiency level ([0098], [0102], [0158] “system then determines if the attribute value matches with a skills interest value from the skills/interest database”, [0193] “Skill may be further filtered by determining that skill is identified in one or more user profiles”);
searching for one or more content items corresponding to the selected one or more tasks ([0130] “activities being suggested may be obtained from the internet”, [0197]-[0198], [0209]-[0210]);
generating a curated playlist comprising the one or more content items corresponding to selected one or more tasks ([0106], [0108] “plurality of target contents represents a series of personalized activities to be achieved in a step-by-step fashion”, [0113] “schema may define a series of activities that can be performed by a user to achieve a user goal … and link them together”, [0117], [0150], [0180])(see NOTE);
Cherukuri does not explicitly teach, however Wickenkamp discloses wherein the user proficiency level is determined by processing circuitry using real-time character recognition to identify one or more characteristics of a user associated with the user profile in one or more received videos ([0090]), and monitoring the one or more characteristics through a series of frames of the one or more received video to determine a current user proficiency for the user ([0081], [0088]-[0089], [0126], [0136]).
retrieving, by the processing circuitry, from a detection module, biometric feedback indicative of user progress during performance of a task ([0033] “monitor the progress of the user during each activity”, [0036] “receive a user input indicating that during a certain time period … the user performs three different activities in series”, wherein “activity may be a physical activity, which is an activity that requires bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that requires energy expenditure” [0037], [0045] “provide user progress feedback to the user while the user is performing an activity… may indicate an amount of time remaining for an activity, may encourage the user to perform the activity faster or slower” i.e. biometric, also see [0088] “monitor physical movement of the user and/or sounds”, [0091] “processing audio and/or visual data … to determine whether or not a user is talking … analyze video and/or audio data to determine whether or not a user is performing an activity, the progress of the user in the activity, and/or a condition associated with the activity”);
recalculating the user progress level based on the biometric feedback ([0062], [0126], “based on the detected/received information, the media guidance application may adjust the play length of media asset”, [0127]); and
adjusting, by the processing circuitry, a play length of a content item in the curated playlist to rectify a discrepancy ([0033] “modify the play length of the media asset that accompanies that activity … in order to keep a user on schedule”; “adjust the play length of the second media asset to rectify the discrepancy”, [0062], [0134], [0144]) between the recalculated user progress level and the event time
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cherukuri to include a generation of a curated playlist and adjust the length of the videos as disclosed by Wickenkamp. Doing so would provide any type of guidance data that is helpful for a user to navigate among and locate desired content (Wickenkamp [0063]) and create a personalized “experience” with the media guidance application (Wickenkamp [0072]).
Cherukuri as modified by Wickenkamp does not explicitly teach “recalculating the user proficiency level based on the biometric feedback; and adjusting, by the processing circuitry, a play length of a content item in the curated playlist to rectify a discrepancy between the recalculated user proficiency level and the event proficiency level.” Instead, Wickenkamp teaches adjusting playlist length based on discrepancy between an estimated amount of time required to perform a particular activity and an actual amount of time a particular activity is performed. However, it is reasonable and obvious to conclude that a user proficiency level directly corresponds to the amount of time required for the activity. I.e. the higher the proficiency level – the faster the time. Given that Wickenkamp already teaches tracking user progress, speed and time at which activity is performed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to derive the proficiency level based on the determined speed and time in order to calculate the discrepancy.
However, to further obviate such reasoning, Wang discloses retrieving, by the processing circuitry, from a detection module, biometric feedback indicative of user progress during performance of a task ([0018] “utilizing specific inputs (e.g., fitness-related information that includes exercise information, vital sign information, and/or user profile information”, [0020], [0032], [0049]);
recalculating the user proficiency level based on the biometric feedback ([0029] “data may identify a progress path … that identifies a particular degree of improvement”, [0033], [0057] “degree of improvement ( e.g., an increase in level and/or category over a particular time period) ... a progress path may indicate that the user should be associated with a next sub-category within a week, month, year”, [0060], [0106]); and
adjusting, by the processing circuitry, a … length of a content item in the curated playlist to rectify a discrepancy ([0058], [0101], [0107] “recommendations may be filtered by the recommendation engine such that a recommendation provided to the user does not suggest actions that are incapable of being performed”, [0122]) between the recalculated user proficiency level and the event proficiency level ([0003] “comparing the exercise metrics to expected progress data “[0019] “adjust expected progress data to provide increasingly realistic progress paths by which users are expected to progress toward a fitness goal”; “adjust expected progress data, and/or adjust which recommendations are provided”, [0031], [0033] “user progressing within some threshold of a determined progress path”; “the user is supposed to be able to run at a particular speed (e.g., 3.5 miles per hour) for a particular duration (e.g., 30 minutes), within the next month”, [0039] “exercise-related recommendation may be selected from the identified recommendations according to a recommendation score (indicating a degree of effectiveness associated with the recommendation)”, [0044], [0055], [0100], [0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cherukuri to rectify a discrepancy between the recalculated user proficiency level and the event proficiency level as disclosed by Wang. Doing so would more accurately classify input data and provide increasingly effective recommendations to progress the user toward a user-defined goal, (Wang [0019]).
NOTE Cherukuri teaches “guidance types include (1) readable types such as a story, lessons learnt, ideas, reviews, and Recommendations; (2) actionable types like a DIY Guide, a How-To Guide, and Step-By-Step Guides; (3) discussable types like conversations;” [0135]; “guidances may be categorized into four types: (1) a readable guidance type; (2) an actionable guidance type; (3) a discussable guidance type … or a readable guidance” [0138]; “define a series of activities that can be performed by a user to achieve a user goal”, “series of focus area cards are displayed” [0175]. Cherukuri further teaches that the guidance can be in the form of an audio or video content [0050]. Thus, it is reasonable and obvious to conclude that presenting a series of activities to the user in the audio or video form essentially generates and provides a curated playlist.
However, to merely obviate such reasoning, Wickenkamp discloses generating a curated playlist comprising the one or more content items corresponding to selected one or more tasks ([0032] “media guidance application may then include these media assets into a media playlist such that each media asset is timed”, [0042], [0159]-[0160]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cherukuri to identify one or more characteristics of a user associated with the user profile in one or more received videos as disclosed by Wickenkamp. Doing so would provide any type of guidance data that is helpful for a user to navigate among and locate desired content (Wickenkamp [0063]) and create a personalized “experience” with the media guidance application (Wickenkamp [0072]).
Regarding claim 11, Cherukuri teaches a system comprising: control circuitry configured to: identify an upcoming event; determine an event proficiency level for completing the upcoming event, wherein the user proficiency level is determined by control circuitry using real-time character recognition to identify one or more characteristics of a user associated with the user profile in one or more received videos, and monitoring the one or more characteristics through a series of frames of the one or more received video to determine a current user proficiency for the user; determine a user proficiency level associated with a user profile; determine one or more tasks for preparation for the upcoming event based on: identifying one or more event keywords associated with the upcoming event; performing a search based on the one or more event keywords; based on results from the search, determining related words based on at least one of: a frequency with which the related words appear within a search results page, whether the related words are used in a same sentence with the one or more event keywords, or a proximity of the related words with the one or more event keywords in the search results; generating an index of the related words; identifying a corresponding task to each of the indexed related words; for each indexed related word, determining a number of instances where the indexed related word points to an event keyword; rating the corresponding task based on the number of instances; and selecting one or more tasks based on at least one of a rating of a corresponding task, the event proficiency level, or the user proficiency level; search for one or more content items corresponding to the selected one or more tasks; and generate a curated playlist comprising the one or more content items corresponding to selected one or more tasks retrieve, from a detection module, biometric feedback indicative of user progress during performance of a task; recalculate the user proficiency level based on the biometric feedback; and adjust a play length of a content item in the curated playlist to rectify a discrepancy between the recalculated user proficiency level and the event proficiency level.
Claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Cherukuri as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the event keyword describes the upcoming event (Cherukuri [0044], [0055], [0172], [0175] “shows scheduled events and appropriate times and descriptions”, [0198] “event is an occurrence scheduled to occur at a particular time or series of times”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Cherukuri as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the user proficiency level is determined based on at least one of user characteristics associated with the user profile (Cherukuri [0098], [0139] “skill rank in terms of professional, personal, hobby or explorer”, [0140] “Each of the hubs have different criteria for the skill level of the person in the activity”, [0193] “skill is identified in one or more user profiles”, Wickenkamp [0036], [0043]), proficiency levels associated with a plurality of user profiles sharing at least one user characteristic with the user profile, or proficiency levels associated with a plurality of user profiles associated with completion of the selected one or more tasks (Cherukuri [0123] “similarities among the user profiles”, [0127]-[0128] “user profile relations may identify a common user interest being shared by the three users”, [0141], [0145], [0149], [0193]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Cherukuri as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein selecting the one or more tasks is further based on an urgency level associated with the upcoming event ([0105] “ranks may reflect a change in the user attribute "time"”, [0200] “scoreboarding may track time-sensitive and/or time-dependent metrics concerning action verbs”, Wickenkamp [0045], [0050]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Cherukuri as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the urgency level is based on at least one of: a closeness between a current date and a date of the upcoming event, a frequency of comments associated with the user profile relating to the upcoming event, or a number of locations wherein communications associated with the user profile were detected relating to the upcoming event (Wickenkamp [0050], [0145]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Cherukuri as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the searching for the one or more content items corresponding to the selected task is further based on a content format of the content item (Cherukuri [0135], [0143], [0156], [0194]), the content format comprising one of video content, audio content, or text content (Cherukuri [0050], [0168], [0187], Wickenkamp [0135], [0153]-[0154]).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Cherukuri as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the content format is determined based on at least one of:
user characteristics associated with the user profile (Cherukuri [0092] “target contents based on user preference. The user may prefer to receive certain type of information”; [0137] “guidance is personalized and ranked by personal preference”), the user proficiency level, a knowledge level associated with the user profile (Cherukuri [0137]), a preferred learning style associated with the user profile, a likelihood of the content format to improve the user proficiency level (Cherukuri [0142]-[0143], [0147]), a frequency of use of the content format associated with the user profile, or an event type of the upcoming event (Cherukuri [0134]-[0135], [0137], [0147], Wickenkamp [0135], [0153]-[0154]).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Cherukuri as modified teaches the method and the system, further comprising: determining an order of the one or more content items in the curated playlist, the order based on at least one of the user proficiency level, an urgency level associated with the upcoming event (Cherukuri [0200]), tasks that depend on other tasks, or an order in which tasks should be performed (Cherukuri [0164]-[0165]); and arranging the one or more content items in the curated playlist based on the determined order (Cherukuri [0141], [0168], [0175], Wickenkamp [0038], [0053]-[0054], [0128]).
NOTE alternatively WANG (US 20190370291) the order based on at least one of the user proficiency level, an urgency level associated with the upcoming event ([0004]) and further obviates the teaching of Cherukuri.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Cherukuri as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the selecting the one or more tasks is further based on:
searching for nodes of a weighted knowledge graph ([0106] “graph module in order or ranks assigned by the ranking module”, [0121]) based on the one or more event keywords (Cherukuri [0044], [0102] “user attribute matches closely to the action verb or topic being searched may be assigned a higher rank”);
identifying a node corresponding to an event similar to the upcoming event based on the one or more event keywords, the similar event sharing a certain number of characteristics with the upcoming event (Cherukuri [0102] “target content that are common to a multiple users where the multiple users have a closer relations, may be assigned a higher rank”; “[0102] “user attribute matches closely to the action verb”, [0146], [0199]); and
searching along edges of the node corresponding to the similar event to determine nodes corresponding to tasks for the similar event ([0111] “module may identify the alternative action verb based on the user attributes, where the database schema contains a list of alternative action verbs. Similar to the action verbs, the alternative action verbs may have a hierarchical link defined among the alternative action verbs in relation to the user attributes”, [0112], [0118], [0198] “categories may be presented according to degree of relevance to action verb”).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Cherukuri as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein one or more videos received by the processing circuity, to identify one or more characteristics of a user associated with the user profile, are received simultaneously (Wickenkamp [0123] “receive content from multiple cloud resources simultaneously”).
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 is/are alternatively or additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherukuri as modified and in further view of Doucette et al. (US 20180374375)(see IDS 06/14/2024).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Cherukuri as modified teaches claims as shown above, Doucette alternatively or additionally teaches the method and the system, wherein selecting the one or more tasks is further based on an urgency level associated with the upcoming event ([0094] “determining the prioritization of one or several tasks “, [0210] “one of the tasks associated with the highest priority”, [0240] “provide an indication of the one or several tasks most urgently requiring user action due to the importance of the task is manifested in the contribution value and/or student shortcomings”, [0254] “time on task is compared to the task schedule”, “determining whether the time on task meets and/or exceeds one or several time thresholds”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Cherukuri as modified to include urgency level as disclosed by Doucette. Doing so would allow it to make timely business and/or processing decisions, facilitate in maximizing user performance and maximum throughput of delivered content received by the user (Doucette [0098],
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Cherukuri as modified teaches the method and the system, wherein the urgency level is based on at least one of: a closeness between a current date and a date of the upcoming event (Wickenkamp [0050], [0145], Doucette [0256]-[0257], also see “failure to achieve a desired level of completion of a program, for example in a pre-defined time period” [0086]-[0087]; “user's progress can be compared to one or several status trigger thresholds” [0088], “prioritization of one or several tasks” [0093]; “timing information can identify one or several dates by which the tasks should be completed, one or several event dates associated with the task such as, for example, one or several due date” [0096]), a frequency of comments associated with the user profile relating to the upcoming event (Doucette [0104], [0107], [0137], [0078], [0099]), or a number of locations wherein communications associated with the user profile were detected relating to the upcoming event.
Further NOTE Ghani et al. (US 20170344748) (see IDS 06/14/2024) teaches a frequency of comments associated with the user profile relating to the upcoming event or a number of locations wherein communications associated with the user profile were detected relating to the upcoming event ([0087] “monitor the event over social media “chatter” from those attending and those who are interested in the event over a period of time”; [0088] “monitor and relay messages for smooth functioning of the event and messages related to emergency preparedness”, [0104] “The user … input the hashtags of the events through customization … will also choose different social networks (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) from which to collect data”, [0115] “message count from various attendees … to clearly note the interest level on the event”, [0116] “number of tweets … will be useful to gauge the interest level”, C1 “monitor said conversations specific to said event” from “users attending an event”) and further obviates teachings of Cherukuri as modified.
Claims 9 and 19 is/are alternatively or additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherukuri as modified and in further view of Guha et al. (US 20140156623) or Latzina et al. (US 20140136519).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Cherukuri as modified teaches claims as shown above, Guha alternatively or additionally teaches the method and the system, wherein the selecting the one or more tasks (F3:314) is further based on a frequency at which the one or more tasks is paired with the upcoming event ([0039]-[0040], [0042], [0049], [0058], [0061]).
Analogously, Latzina et al. (US 20140136519) discloses claims 9 and 19 in [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cherukuri to include frequency at which the one or more tasks is paired with the upcoming event as disclosed by Guha or Latzina. Doing so would provide relevant information about tasks that may be helpful in completing the tasks, e.g., information that has been viewed by other users that have engaged in similar tasks (Guha [0005]).
Claims 10 and 20 is/are alternatively or additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherukuri as modified and in further view of Vanderwende et al. (US 2005022035).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Cherukuri as modified teaches claims as shown above, Vanderwende alternatively or additionally teaches the method and the system, wherein the selecting the one or more tasks is further based on: searching for nodes ([0116]) of a weighted knowledge graph ([0031] “Each node in the graph receives a weight according to how many nodes link to it, and according to how many nodes the given node links to. The output of the algorithm is a score for each node in the graph”) based on the one or more event keywords ([0033], [0038], [0042] “node type that corresponds to an event”); identifying a node corresponding to an event similar to the upcoming event based on the one or more event keywords, the similar event sharing a certain number of characteristics with the upcoming event ([0061], [0063], [0065]); and searching along edges of the node corresponding to the similar event to determine nodes corresponding to tasks for the similar event ([0107], [0112]-[0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cherukuri to include a weighted knowledge graph as disclosed by Vanderwende. Doing so provides better coherence and readability than sentence extraction or compression for multi-document summaries (Vanderwende [0115]).
Claims 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherukuri (US 2019/0121811) in view of Agarwal et al. (US 20160088352) and in further view of REGAN (US 20160180248).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Cherukuri teaches a method and a system as disclosed in the primary rejection above.
Cherukuri does not explicitly teach, however Agarwal discloses wherein the user proficiency level is determined by processing circuitry using real-time character recognition to identify one or more characteristics of a user associated with the user profile in one or more received videos ([0073]-[0074]), and monitoring the one or more characteristics through a series of frames ([0073]) of the one or more received video to determine a current user interaction for the user ([0032], [0037], [0039], [0006] “these determinations to arrive at an interaction level for each user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Cherukuri to identify one or more characteristics of a user associated with the user profile in one or more received videos as disclosed by Agarwal. Doing so would improve a reliability of data collected about a user (Agarwal [0002]).
Cherukuri as modified by Agarwal does not explicitly teach, however, REGAN discloses monitoring … a current user proficiency for the user ([0041]-[0042], [0129], [0165]).
NOTE if Cherukuri does not explicitly teach, however, REGAN discloses generating a curated playlist comprising the one or more content items corresponding to selected one or more tasks ([0044], [0061]-[0062], [0077]-[0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Cherukuri to monitor a current user proficiency as disclosed by REGAN. Doing so would provide an improvement in a given skill among a plurality of available skills over a given time period (REGAN Abstract).
◊ Cherukuri does not explicitly teach, however REGAN discloses -
retrieving, by the processing circuitry, from a detection module, biometric feedback indicative of user progress during performance of a task ([0099], [0178]); recalculating the user proficiency level based on the biometric feedback ([0100]-[0102], [0172] “maintain a probabilistic approximation of a proficiency level, which is updated continuously with new evidence/data”, [0192], [0207]); and
adjusting, by the processing circuitry, a play length of a content item in the curated playlist to rectify a discrepancy between the recalculated user proficiency level and the event proficiency level ([0041] “increase their knowledge of the first skill from a satisfactory level to an expert level, and structures their learning content accordingly”; [0082], [0105], [0184] “adds any new metadata (e.g., indicating a difficulty, length … if necessary, to describe the new requirement or update to an existing requirement”, [0185] “use interactive features of the dashboard to focus on different aspects of the user's progress and adjusts report properties such as timeframe and choice of proficiencies to measure”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Cherukuri to adjust a play length to rectify a discrepancy between the recalculated user proficiency level and the event proficiency level as disclosed by REGAN. Doing so would provide an improvement in a given skill among a plurality of available skills over a given time period (REGAN Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 02/06/2026 with respect to the rejection if claim 11 under 35 USC 101 are not deemed persuasive. It seems the applicant misinterprets the 101 rejection. Claim 11 is rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter with respect to the claimed control circuitry, which is not properly defined. The applicant is advised to amend the claim to properly define the control circuitry as being a tangible hardware component in order to overcome the rejection.
The applicant's remaining arguments in regard to the presently amended claims are addressed in the updated rejections to the claims above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated on PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to POLINA G PEACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/POLINA G PEACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 March 21, 2026