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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/08/2026 has been entered.
This office action is responsive to RCE filed on 01/08/2026. Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 19 are amended. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1-19, and 21 are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 8 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 15 is/are drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 8, and 15 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-19, and 21 are directed to providing content to a user based on received and analyzed behavior data for a user as it relates to exploration content. Specifically, claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recite(s) adjusting an amount of exploration content provided during a content consumption session, analyzing behavioral data of a user during Internet browsing or other content- consumption browsing; determining, based on the analysis, a proclivity for exploration data associated with the user, the exploration data defining an amount of content to be provided to the user that falls outside of a filter bubble associated with the user; providing a current exploration value and the proclivity; receiving, in response to the providing, modified parameters of an adjustment formula; adjusting the current exploration value according to the modified parameters of the adjustment formula to generate an updated exploration value; and outputting the exploration content to the user consistent with the updated exploration value, which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
The Claim limitations are listed under Methods Of Organizing Human Activity, grouped as following:
adjusting an amount of exploration content provided during a content consumption session; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
analyzing behavioral data of a user during Internet browsing or other content- consumption browsing; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
determining, based on the analysis, a proclivity for exploration data associated with the user, the exploration data defining an amount of content to be provided to the user that falls outside of a filter bubble associated with the user; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
providing a current exploration value and the proclivity; receiving, in response to the providing, modified parameters of an adjustment formula; adjusting the current exploration value according to the modified parameters of the adjustment formula to generate an updated exploration value; and which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
outputting the exploration content to the user consistent with the updated exploration value; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as system, non transitory computer readable medium, processor, memories, artificial intelligence (AI) model merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the system, non transitory computer readable medium, processor, memories, artificial intelligence (AI) model perform(s) the steps or functions of adjusting an amount of exploration content provided during a content consumption session, analyzing behavioral data of a user during Internet browsing or other content- consumption browsing; determining, based on the analysis, a proclivity for exploration data associated with the user, the exploration data defining an amount of content to be provided to the user that falls outside of a filter bubble associated with the user; providing a current exploration value and the proclivity; receiving, in response to the providing, modified parameters of an adjustment formula; adjusting the current exploration value according to the modified parameters of the adjustment formula to generate an updated exploration value; and outputting the exploration content to the user consistent with the updated exploration value. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a system, non transitory computer readable medium, processor, memories, artificial intelligence (AI) model to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of providing content to a user based on received and analyzed behavior data for a user as it relates to exploration content. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the system, non transitory computer readable medium, processor, memories, artificial intelligence (AI) model perform(s) the steps or functions of adjusting an amount of exploration content provided during a content consumption session, analyzing behavioral data of a user during Internet browsing or other content- consumption browsing; determining, based on the analysis, a proclivity for exploration data associated with the user, the exploration data defining an amount of content to be provided to the user that falls outside of a filter bubble associated with the user; providing a current exploration value and the proclivity; receiving, in response to the providing, modified parameters of an adjustment formula; adjusting the current exploration value according to the modified parameters of the adjustment formula to generate an updated exploration value; and outputting the exploration content to the user consistent with the updated exploration value. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of providing content to a user based on received and analyzed behavior data for a user as it relates to exploration content. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-19, and 21 further describe the abstract idea of providing content to a user based on received and analyzed behavior data for a user as it relates to exploration content. Claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, 16-19, and 21 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a AI machine-learning model, system, non transitory computer readable medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of providing content to a user based on received and analyzed behavior data for a user as it relates to exploration content. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the AI machine-learning model, system, non transitory computer readable medium perform(s) the steps or functions of wherein the behavioral data of the user relates to interaction of the user with the exploration content; wherein the behavioral data of the user includes selections, clicks, and pauses with respect to the exploration content; wherein the proclivity is determined based on a frequency with which the user interacts with, or otherwise expresses interest in, the exploration content; converting the proclivity, based on a range of the proclivity, to a corresponding suggested exploration value within a range of exploration values; and setting the updated exploration value equal to the suggested exploration value; comparing the proclivity to a predefined proclivity baseline value; determining a difference between the proclivity and the predefined proclivity baseline value; calculating an adjustment value within an adjustment range based on the difference using the modified parameters of the adjustment formula; and calculating the updated exploration value based on the current exploration value adjusted by the adjustment value; wherein the adjusting the current exploration value comprises: providing the behavioral data of the user, the current exploration value, and historical adjustment data; and receiving the updated exploration value. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of providing content to a user based on received and analyzed behavior data for a user as it relates to exploration content. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Subject Matter Overcoming the Cited Prior Art
3. As detailed in the Office Action the Examiner has not applied a prior art rejection to Claim(s) 1-19, and 21 when viewed in combination with the corresponding independent claims, however the claim(s) has/have been rejected other grounds as detailed in the Office Action.
In reference to independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the Office is unaware of any references that teach, individually or without an unreasonable combination of references, the combination of limitations steps found in the claims especially limitation that says: “determining, based on the analysis, a proclivity for exploration data associated with the user; providing a current exploration value and the proclivity to an artificial intelligence (AI) model; receiving from the AI model, in response to the providing, modified parameters of an adjustment formula; adjusting the current exploration value according to the modified parameters of the adjustment formula to generate an updated exploration value”. No reference found that would teach the above limitation(s).
Examiner notes: providing during a content consumption session and based on behavior data and based on analysis of proclivity for exploration data with the help of the AI by feeding the AI exploration value and proclivity to AI model and then adjusting and outputting exploration content with the updated exploration value.
The most relevant prior art identified by the Examiner is 20210224685. It teaches the content selection system 26 receives a trained content selection model from a model training system 28. As discussed below, the model training system 28 is configured to implement a machine learning process using a reinforcement learning mechanism, such as, for example, an explore/exploit mechanism. In some embodiments, the model training system 28 is configured to iteratively modify one or more machine learning (e.g., artificial intelligence, neural network, etc.) models based on additional training data, modified rewards values, and/or other data received from additional systems, such as the network interface system 24 and/or the content selection system 26. In some embodiments, the model training system 28 implements a state-action-reward-state-action (SARSA) process modified to use Thomspon sampling, as discussed in greater detail below, but it does not teach providing a current exploration value and the proclivity to an artificial intelligence (AI) model; receiving from the AI model, in response to the providing, modified parameters of an adjustment formula; adjusting the current exploration value according to the modified parameters of the adjustment formula to generate an updated exploration value. Therefore, it lacks the combination of claimed elements as claimed by the independent claims.
The most relevant prior art identified by the Examiner is/are 20240427825. It teaches adjusting their threshold based on curiosity level and tolerance for divergent thinking, the boundaries of the curiosity halo are continually redrawn in real time so that users can dynamically uncover topics and ideas outside of their day-to-day experience. That is, the system and methods are designed create an evolving set of recommendations, evolving as the user's recommendation sets change over time. In essence, this curiosity halo computation changes over time in reaction to the user's recommendations and subsequent engagement with those items presented as part of their curiosity halo (which then become part of dynamic recommendation field used to generate an evolving set of recommendations, but it does not teach providing a current exploration value and the proclivity to an artificial intelligence (AI) model; receiving from the AI model, in response to the providing, modified parameters of an adjustment formula; adjusting the current exploration value according to the modified parameters of the adjustment formula to generate an updated exploration value. Therefore, it lacks the combination of claimed elements as claimed by the independent claims.
All these references listed above teaches some of the features in the limitations of the claim but when combining it becomes not obvious and the references would teach the claim as a whole.
Examiner note: none of the references or combined references teach the combination of limitations of claim 1, 8, and 15 or no reference found that would teaches the combination of limitations of claim 1, 8, and 15, especially claim limitations: determining, based on the analysis, a proclivity for exploration data associated with the user; providing a current exploration value and the proclivity to an artificial intelligence (AI) model; receiving from the AI model, in response to the providing, modified parameters of an adjustment formula; adjusting the current exploration value according to the modified parameters of the adjustment formula to generate an updated exploration value, and which is an idea of providing content to a user so as to balance known content of interest to the user, and potential new content of interest (e.g., exploration content). An example embodiment operates by receiving and analyzing behavioral data of a user as it relates to exploration content. This behavioral data may include the user selecting, slowing scrolling, pausing scrolling, or other actions that indicate interest in provided exploration content. Based on this data, the user?s proclivity for exploration content is determined. This proclivity is compared to a current exploration value associated with the user, and used in one of a variety of different ways to calculate an adjustment to the user?s exploration content value, which dictates an amount of exploration content that will be provided to the user.
When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious. Therefore, the prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
NPL Reference
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The NPL “Planning to Binge: How Consumers Choose to Allocate Time to View Sequential Versus” describes “As streaming media online has become more common, several firms have embraced the
phenomenon of “binge-watching” by offering their customers entire seasons of a television-style
series at one time instead of releasing individual episodes weekly. However, the popularity of
binge-watching seems to conflict with prior research suggesting that consumers prefer to savor
enjoyable experiences by delaying them or spreading them out. Here we demonstrate how to
reconcile these issues using both experimental studies and field data. We examine binge
watching preferences both when people are planning to consume and in the moment of
consumption. Our studies show that binge-watching is more likely to be preferred when
individual episodes are perceived to be sequential and connected, as opposed to when events are
independent with points of closure. Furthermore, this pattern may occur because consumers
experience increased utility from completing sequential content. These findings have
implications for how firms might frame or divide up their content in ways that allow them to
tailor their promotion and pricing to a range of consumer preferences”.
Pertinent Art
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reference#20240137621 teaches similar invention which describes the content is stitched into personalized endemic banners that run on an advertising platform, which then correspondingly helps drive user reach by creating potentially relevant content outside of their traditional comfort zone. The method allows an advertisement platform to present content exploration and awareness which brings up content titles outside of what the user would normally see. The system presents an important campaign tactic for the marketer that can look to broaden the audience profile for their content services.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of providing content to a user based on received and analyzed behavior data for a user as it relates to exploration content which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)), (MPEP § 2106.04).
B. Applicant argues that the claims are similar to the claims in Example 37 and that the instant claims recite a specific improvement by automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over the system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Example 37 claim 1, the mental process was determined to be integrated into a practical application because “the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage resulting in an improved user interface.
Claim 1 of the present Application, the additional elements integrated the abstract idea into a practical application because of the recited specific improvement over prior art systems of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over the system. In contrast, Applicant’s claims are not analogous to Example 37 because they have different claim sets, different fact patterns and do not proffer any such improvement. Moreover, Applicant’s specification does not provide any technical support/technical evidence that the instant claimed invention, when implemented.
C. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to providing content to a user based on received and analyzed behavior data for a user as it relates to exploration content does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to “system, non transitory computer readable medium, processor, memories, artificial intelligence (AI) model” perform(s) the steps or functions of adjusting an amount of exploration content provided during a content consumption session, analyzing behavioral data of a user during Internet browsing or other content- consumption browsing; determining, based on the analysis, a proclivity for exploration data associated with the user, the exploration data defining an amount of content to be provided to the user that falls outside of a filter bubble associated with the user; providing a current exploration value and the proclivity; receiving, in response to the providing, modified parameters of an adjustment formula; adjusting the current exploration value according to the modified parameters of the adjustment formula to generate an updated exploration value; and outputting the exploration content to the user consistent with the updated exploration value. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
D. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2B.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to providing content to a user based on received and analyzed behavior data for a user as it relates to exploration content does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to “system, non transitory computer readable medium, processor, memories, artificial intelligence (AI) model” are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of providing content to a user based on received and analyzed behavior data for a user as it relates to exploration content. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAREK ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (571) 272-9638. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex Mon - Thur 7-7:00 and Fri 7-4:00.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAREK ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621B
Prosecution Insights