DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 10/28/2025.
Claim 1-37 have been cancelled.
Claims 38, 45, 48 and 52 have been amended.
5. Claims 38-57 are currently pending and are considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on (4) on 10/28/2025; 11/13/2025; 02/05/2026 and 02/20/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 38-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 38, recites a method, which is a statutory class, executed by a processing circuitry, a database, a memory and a processor: the method, comprising:
receiving, separately from a video content stream, a data structure comprising event identification data for identifying time points of video content of the video content stream that are relevant to an event in the video content, wherein the event comprises a continuous portion of the video content, the data structure further comprising:
a first tag identifying a start time of the event in the video content;
a first annotation corresponding to the start time of the event;
a second tag identifying an end time of the event in the video content; and
a second annotation corresponding to the end time of the event;
determining, by processing circuitry, to present the video content item on a device; and during presentation of the video content on the device:
generating for display on the device identification of the event in the video content;
receiving an indication of a user interface input entered at the device requesting skipping of the event; and
based at least in part on user interface input requesting skipping of the event:
skipping presentation of at least a portion of the event through the end time of the event identified by the second tag; and
resuming the presentation of the video content after the end time of the event identified by the second tag.
The steps of
receiving, separately from a video content stream, a data structure comprising event identification data for identifying time points of video content of the video content stream that are relevant to an event in the video content, wherein the event comprises a continuous portion of the video content, the data structure further comprising:
a first tag identifying a start time of the event in the video content;
a first annotation corresponding to the start time of the event;
a second tag identifying an end time of the event in the video content; and
a second annotation corresponding to the end time of the event;
determining, by processing circuitry, to present the video content item on a device; and during presentation of the video content on the device:
generating for display on the device identification of the event in the video content;
receiving an indication of a user interface input entered at the device requesting skipping of the event; and
based at least in part on user interface input requesting skipping of the event:
skipping presentation of at least a portion of the event through the end time of the event identified by the second tag; and
resuming the presentation of the video content after the end time of the event identified by the second tag,
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a method for presenting additional content associated with media content. The above identified method steps recite commercial interactions such as sales activities and/or tailored personalized marketing relating to providing data associated with the person.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction such as tailored personalized marketing, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a processing circuitry, a database, a memory and a processor. The processing circuitry and processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of
receiving, a data structure, the data structure further comprising: a first tag, a first annotation; a second tag; and a second annotation; determining; and during presentation of the video content on the device: generating for display identification of the event in the video content; and skipping presentation of at least a portion of the event; and resuming the presentation of the video content) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processing circuitry, a database, a memory and a processor amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are similar to the additional elements found by courts to be mere instructions to apply an exception because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery to perform an existing process such as: a common business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 US 208, 223; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334); providing a user with tailored information like advertisements based on information known about the user such as a location, address, or personal characteristics and a time of day is a fundamental practice long prevalent in our system); In re Morsa, 809 F. App’x 913, 917 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. That is, a processing circuitry, a database, a memory and a processor, performing commercial interactions including: receiving, a data structure, the data structure further comprising: a first tag, a first annotation; a second tag; and a second annotation; determining; and during presentation of the video content on the device: generating for display identification of the event in the video content; and skipping presentation of at least a portion of the event; and resuming the presentation of the video content, amount to mere instructions to apply the steps to a computer comprising of a processor.
Thus, claims 38, 45 and 52 are not eligible.
As for dependent claims 39-44, 46-51 and 53-57, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claims 38, 45 and 52. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 38-57 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s amendment filed 10/28/2025, with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claim 48 has been withdrawn.
10. Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 38-57 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
11. Applicant argued “… the claims in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. V. LG Elecs., Inc. (2018) were eligible for being "directed to an improved user interface for computing devices"--claim 38 of the present application is directed to an improved user interface for video navigation. The claim provides a solution to a specific technological problem: how to efficiently navigate streamed video content based on defined events. The claim provides a specific solution: receiving a data structure separately from the video content stream. This architecture avoids or mitigates the latency and processing overhead of parsing an entire, massive video stream for embedded event markers. This is a "specific, non-generic improvement to... architecture" (see Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp., 2016) and a clear improvement to computer functionality…” Remarks pages 7-10
12. The examiner notes that the instant claims bear no similarity to the DDR Holdings decision, because the instant claim merely receives event data as a tag and/or annotation, the system avoids parsing the video stream, whereas the claims in DDR Holding describe how the user interface manipulates the data in such a way that rather than directed the user to page requested by the link as would normally occur in a networking environment, the invention changes the normal functioning of such networking environment and instead of sending the claim to a landing page of the link, the invention displays the landing page as part of the currently accessed domain. The instant invention does nothing that could even be remotely similar to the claims of DDR. Furthermore, in DDR, the Court noted that a claim may amount to more than any abstract idea recited in the claims when it addresses a business challenge, where that challenge is particular to a specific technological environment, such as the Internet. 773 F.3d at 1257.
13. The examiner notes that the claims in Enfish were “specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer database” Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims were thus "directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate," rather than an abstract idea implemented on a computer. Id. at 1336." However, there is no such improvement to the way computers operated claimed in the instant application, but rather, use computer components as tools to carry out/automate the abstract idea.
14. Examiner notes that in Bascom, it was the Fed. Cir. concluded an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. There is no similar combination of additional elements in the instant application. The rejection of claims 38-57 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
15. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARILYN G MACASIANO whose telephone number is (571)270-5205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12:00-9:00 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, llana Spar can be reached at 571)270-7537. 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.
/MARILYN G MACASIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 02/24/2026