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 .
Status of Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed by the applicant on 22 May 2026.
Claims 1-4, 6-14 and 16-20 are pending and claims 1, 9, 16, and 20 are amended, and have been examined.
Claim 5 is cancelled.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 22 May 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s assertions, on pages 1-2, that the claim language is not an abstract idea, and if it were, the additional elements integrate the claims into a practical application, are not persuasive. Prior to the implementation of this automatic assistance provision through tracking user interactions, this would have been a mental process implemented by the user or tech support to trouble shoot the user interactions and find a solution to fix the problem, an abstract idea in the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. The additional abstract ideas are detailed in the full rejection below. The applicants arguments assert conclusions without evidence to support. That is, there is no evidence supporting that instructional content to repair an issue with user interactions, are not in the two categories cited for the reasons asserted by the Examiner. Therefore, the applicants’ lack of evidence do not support the conclusions and the abstract idea categories are maintained.
With regards to the additional elements, the applicants’ assertions, on page 2, that the additional elements are indicative of integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, are not persuasive. The applicants’ assertions, that the additional elements indicate an improvement to user interactions with the STB are not persuasive. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality without reciting limits to how the claims perform the functionally claimed limitations, or reciting limits to the mechanism that performs the functions. Therefore, the additional elements are generally linked to the abstract ideas and are applied as tools to perform the judicial exceptions. The asserted improvement is not supported by the disclosure, nor by the additional elements.
The applicants’ arguments that counting the number of interactions and displaying data that is relevant to a determined problem changes the analyses, are not persuasive. The improvements that the applicant is asserting are merely improvements to the historical method of a user or tech support defining issues and providing repair support through automation, i.e. an abstract idea as discussed above. That is, the additional elements are recited at such a high level of generality, with disclosure of said improvement in the specification. Therefore, the findings that the claims are directed to an abstract idea is maintained. For the same reasons, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas, either.
The Applicant’s assertion that the STB, an additional element, integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application, based on the count and amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas, are not persuasive. These limitations, on their own, i.e. the count of the number of inputs for baseline and actual user input comparison is a mental process that further supports the assertion of certain methods of organizing human activity as discussed above for a mental process a user or tech support would provide. The root of the practical application and significantly more analyses are in the additional elements, such that the applicant has not pointed to any significant section from the specification that discloses said improvement. That is, the specification does not reveal advances to the function of a STB because it is generally disclosed at a high level without disclosing or limiting how the counting or instruction generation are generated or limiting the mechanism that counts or generates. Applying abstract ideas on a STB used as a tool are not indicative of a practical application, nor do these actions alter the general disclosure of the STB into significantly more than the abstract idea.
Please find the updated rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 below reflecting the amended claim limitations.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is Maintained.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 22 May 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 4, the applicant asserts that Want and Fu fail to teach playback of video content, which is not persuasive and shown in the amended rejection, below. Further the applicants’ assertion that a user device is not inclusive of a STB in Want are also not persuasive because [0021] explicitly discloses “The electronic user devices 102 may be any number of different types of personal and mobile devices configured to communicate via the network 104 (e.g. a set-top box).” The applicants’ assertions that Want’s interaction service is significantly more general, is not persuasive because the applicant does not reveal, beyond the possibility of unrecited interactions leading to playback, anything more than the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim language, which is anticipated by the citations of Want. The applicants’ assertion that Want does not discloses the new limitation to playback of video on a STB, where video content is displayed, are not persuasive as disclosed in the amended claims below, specifically in at least the [Abstract] and [0004].
The interactions that are mapped by Want, argued by the applicant on pages 4-5, are tracking both the user’s actions in at least effectuating the playback, and tracking of the health of the system and operations, as recited in the claims. The claims do not recite any limits on the user interactions that are logged. That is, the claims do not specify how the quantity, variety, or measurement methods are implemented for monitoring user interactions that are required to be more than the applicant asserted “significantly more general” or “qualitative” “measurement primitive” features of Want, such that the arguments are not persuasive.
Nothing in the claims detail or effectuate limits on said monitoring, identifying, or determining interactions that may lead to or cause playback, but for a new “number of inputs” features added to the identifying baseline interactions and determining inefficient interactions clauses. Since there may be variation as to what may be evaluated as an inefficient set of interactions by the user, the quantity or characterizations of the interactions may vary based upon elements not explicitly defined. Therefore, Want’s disclosure in the cited paragraphs, of tracking user interactions, are similarly without boundary conditions and implicitly incorporate at least tracking the aggregation of the interactions when Want discloses a length of time between interactions.
This [0051] disclosure of Want doubly implies that while time is explicitly tracked, each of the interactions that occur are also quantitatively logged, i.e. a time between a first and second, a second and third, or n and n+1 interaction, are each logged. “Repetitive interactions” and “repeatedly opening the same application” discloses a system must inherently log, track, or count the number of times those inputs or actions occur within a given period. One cannot establish repetition without tracking the quantity of the event. Therefore, the disclosure in at least [0051] implicitly discloses that the device is logging a quantity of interaction. Further, Want [0051] discloses that these repetitions indicate "difficulty" because they happen "without presumed intended result" and that they are used to "detect the user having trouble." Therefore, Want fulfills the metrics identifying a baseline number of inputs and comparing the baseline count to the actual count of interactions.
The applicant’s arguments, on page 5, asserting that Want does not disclose content payload that includes corrective actions for an STB problem, are not persuasive. In fact, Want discloses in [0051] “user device interaction service 240 is used to detect the user having trouble with an application, user interface, settings, services, or other programs running … a system that not only “searches for matching associated media based on the contextual elements in the information received and the indicated difficulty and finds a video demonstrating a particular aspect of the application,” then “plays the video on the display.” Further, the added citation from [0059] heals what was present in Want alone before adding Fu for this limitation, but was not explicitly cited in the last office action.
The applicants’ assertions, on page 6, with regards to claim 9, arguing the same assertions as claims 1 and 16, are not persuasive for the reasons above. That is, claims 1, 9, and 16 share the limitations of: causing playback on an STB monitor, monitoring the STB for user interactions and operational data, logged to their respective database or server, identifying baseline input counts, comparing user interaction to baseline interaction counts, and generating the instructional content, each argued, by the applicant, as not supported by prior art on pages 4-6, and answered in the paragraphs above, such that they need not be duplicated here, for claim 9.
The additional limitations in claim 9 that were not discussed above and are new limitations are: identifying baseline interaction values comprising a baseline number of inputs with a newly available service, identifying the service is new by comparing the number of user interactions with the baseline number of actions, identifying a software version of the service, and generating instructional content responsive to the service being identified as newly available, and wherein the instructional content comprises a first image of a first interface of the identified hardware, and a second image of a second interface of the identified software version of the service running on the STB. These limitations were not previously presented. The prior art rejection below has been reworked to identify citations from the current prior art that appropriately reads on the instant claims, including those listed above.
Please find the updated 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection below, with updated citations to account for the updated claim language.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 is Maintained.
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 1-4, 6-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite the following functions: monitor set top box (STB), log interactions and operational data leading to playback, identify baseline interactions comprising a number of inputs for action, compare interaction number data with baselines number data, determine inefficiency, identify user device and its software, if the system determines an inefficiency of the user, generate instructional content if inefficient including images, and identifying STB problem in response to problem in operational data, which are abstract ideas in the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” more specifically “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” specifically for social activities, because the claims focus on collecting user interaction data, identifying patterns, and selecting instructional content to help a user based on either the malfunction of the hardware or difficulties of the user. Further, the claims perform the mental processes that a user or tech support would have historically performed during either a user or hardware malfunction, analyzing the historical interactions and determining a repair or function guidance, along with instructions to walk the user through self or tech support assisted repair.
The claims are also in the subcategory of “commercial and legal interactions” for commercial interactions in marketing, sales, and advertising, because the claims utilize logged user data or user adjacent device hardware and software data to formulate self-help repair or function guidance to assist users by delivering generated content for newly introduced products or services when the user is “inefficient” or the system faces a problem, such that it drives the user’s behaviors, leading to satisfaction and customer retention and extended use times, i.e. a business process. (Examples scenarios could be an unhelped user, whether via manual tech support, self-research help, or the automated assistance of the instant claims, turns off the system removing revenue from viewership and advertisements or other revenue streams based on keeping the user’s attention attached to the STB.) The claims each recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claims recite the health server, STB, the service, display device, a user interaction table, hardware, and software, and in claim 16 only, a server, a processor, a non-transitory storage medium, and computer executable instructions, which are additional elements. According to the specification ¶ [0015] “Content delivery system 100 includes STB 102 communicatively coupled to a source of media content, for presentation on a display 104. STB 102 can comprise a set-top box (STB), computing device, smartphone, smart television, streaming device, or other suitable device capable of receiving media content,” such that the hardware is incorporated and comprises the same hardware disclosed only in claim 16, which is broadly and generally disclosed to in ¶ [0025] to be general purpose computing structures that perform the functions of the instructions that are executed, i.e. software, aka, the service. The claims are adding the words apply it, merely applying the abstract ideas on general purpose computing structures, where the computer is used as a tool, therefore these additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claims recite instructional content, user interactions, operational data, baseline interaction values, an interaction with the service that is inefficient, and images, which are all data that is characterized, i.e. the data is non-functional descriptive information and does not carry patentable weight. The user interaction table is a database comprised of characterized data. he causing playback element is sending and receiving data. The specification does not reveal that the that the core of the invention is related to databases, i.e. the manner in which the data is stored, or to sending and receiving data. Therefore, this data structure and the sending and receiving element are generally linked to the abstract idea, without applying or using the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond being generally linked to databases and sending/receiving data.
The claims recite using a machine learning system, which is an additional element. The machine learning system is recited in the claims with a high level of generality. Therefore, the use of machine learning is no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The specification does not reveal improvements to machine learning, databases, database structures, STB, generating content, content delivery systems, general purpose computing structures, STB, or to the characterization of data, therefore the claims are generally linking the abstract ideas to each field of use portrayed by the additional elements, and to the technological environment of generating and presenting instructional content on content delivery services, i.e. merely executing instructions using general purpose structures or machine learning, that are incidental or token additions to the claim, that do not alter or affect how the limitations are performed (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Further, the claims recite the functions identified as abstract ideas without detailing some other meaningful application beyond generally linking the abstract ideas to the additional elements, which are generally linked the technological environment and the fields of use (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim as a whole, while looking at the additional elements individually and as a combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are each directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Additionally, the analysis for Step 2B is commensurate with the analysis above for step 2A, Prong 2, therefore, for the same reasons stated above, since there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, these additional elements, when taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exceptions. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 9, Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following functions: monitor STB, log interactions and operational data, identify baseline interactions, assess interactions and data, determine newly available service, identify user device and its software, if the system determines that the service is new, generate instructional content if service is new including images, which are abstract ideas in the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” more specifically “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” specifically for social activities, and “commercial and legal interactions” for commercial interactions in marketing, sales, and advertising, because the claim utilizes user data or user adjacent device hardware and software data to assist users by delivering generated content for newly introduced products or services such that it drives the user’s behaviors and business’s sales, advertising, and marketing (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(ii)(B) and (C)). The generating step is a contingent step, that may not occur if the data does not show a newly available service. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claims recite the health servers, STB, the service, a user interaction table, hardware, and software, which are additional elements. According to the specification ¶ [0015] “Content delivery system 100 includes STB 102 communicatively coupled to a source of media content, for presentation on a display 104. STB 102 can comprise a set-top box (STB), computing device, smartphone, smart television, streaming device, or other suitable device capable of receiving media content,” such that the hardware is broadly and generally disclosed to in ¶ [0025] to be general purpose computing structures that perform the functions of the instructions that are executed, i.e. software. The claims are adding the words apply it, merely applying the abstract idea on general purpose computing structures, where the computer is used as a tool, therefore these additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites non-functional descriptive information. The user interaction table is a database comprised of characterized data. The specification does not reveal that the that the core of the invention is related to databases, i.e. the manner in which the data is stored. Therefore, this data structure is generally linked to the abstract idea, used to hold the interaction data, such that the data structure is generally linked to the use of the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(h)).
The claims recite a machine learning system, which is an additional element. The machine learning system is recited in terms of the and intended use, for generating and presenting instruction content, and recited further as part of the preamble, where the claim limitations recite the intended uses, generating the content in response to determining, and the intended result, where the content includes particular images of the users’ devices identified. The claims do not detail how the machine learning performs these uses or outcomes. In fact, these functions are described at a high level of generality. Instead, the specification focused on the nature of the data being manipulated - i.e. the descriptive nature of the data. The specification discloses in ¶ [0013], [0014], [0033], and [0037] that the machine learning system may be or utilize nearly any model including generative ML/AI. Therefore, the machine learning model is recited, adding the words apply it, merely instructions to implement the abstract idea using a machine learning system. The specification does not reveal improvements to machine learning, databases, database structures, STB, generating content, content delivery systems, general purpose computing structures, STB, or to the characterization of data, therefore the claims are generally linking the abstract ideas to each field of use portrayed by the additional elements, and to the technological environment of generating and presenting instructional content on content delivery services, i.e. merely executing instructions using general purpose structures or machine learning, that are incidental or token additions to the claim, that do not alter or affect how the limitations are performed (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Further, the claims recite the functions identified as abstract ideas without detailing some other meaningful application beyond generally linking the abstract ideas to the additional elements, which are generally linked the technological environment and the fields of use (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim as a whole, while looking at the additional elements individually and as a combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are each directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Additionally, the analysis for Step 2B is commensurate with the analysis above for step 2A, Prong 2, therefore, for the same reasons stated above, since there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, it is also asserted that these additional elements, when taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exceptions. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 further demonstrate the abstract idea of the independent claims with the function: identifying newly available service. Identifying the service as newly available is an abstract idea in the category of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" for “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” specifically for social activities, and “commercial and legal interactions” for commercial interactions in marketing, sales, and advertising, because the claim further modifies the user behavior if the service is new, which impacts the commercial interactions in sales, advertising and marketing. These claims do not have additional elements beyond the service and the STB, which are merely used to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application and do not result in significantly more than the identified abstract idea for the same reasons disclosed in the independent claim.
Claims 3, and 17 further demonstrate the abstract idea of the independent claims with the function: generate instructional content in response to the service being identified as newly available. Generating instructional content is an abstract idea in the category of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" for “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” specifically for social activities, and “commercial and legal interactions” for commercial interactions in marketing, sales, and advertising, because the claim further modifies the user behavior if the service is new, which impacts the commercial interactions in sales, advertising and marketing. The generating step is a contingent step, that may not occur if the data does not show a newly available service These claims do not have additional elements beyond the service and the STB, which are merely used to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application and do not result in significantly more than the identified abstract idea for the same reasons disclosed in the independent claim.
Claims 4, 10-11, and 18-19 further demonstrate the abstract idea of the independent claims with the function: claims 4, 10 and 18: delivering the content through the STB, and claims 11, and 19: delivering the content through a peripheral device.. These delivery limitations are in the abstract ideas category of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" for “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” specifically for social activities, and “commercial and legal interactions” for commercial interactions in marketing, sales, and advertising, because the claims further modify the device that receives the data, which modifies the user behavior, which impacts the commercial interactions in sales, advertising and marketing. As far as these limitations are merely transmitting data to different devices, which are additional elements, the specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is in transmitting data. In fact, these functions are described at a high level of generality. Instead, the specification focused on the nature of the data being transmitted - i.e. the descriptive nature of the data. The additional elements, the STB, or the peripheral device, which are disclosed in the specification ¶ [0025] as general-purpose computing structures, are merely being applied as tools for implementing the abstract ideas. Therefore, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into and into a practical application and the additional elements, when taken individually and in combination, do not result in significantly more than the identified abstract idea for the same reasons disclosed in the independent claims.
Claims 6-8, and 12-14, do not recite abstract ideas. The generating steps performed in the claims which these claims depend, are contingent steps, such that the instructional content may not even occur that may not occur if the data does not show inefficient user interactions The claims merely identify the instructional content comprises as a different format, i.e. data characterizations: Claims 6 and 12: a video tutorial; claims 7 and 13: an interactive simulation; claims 8 and 14: a text-based guide. These limitations, the video tutorial, interactive simulation, and text-based guide, are characterizations of data, merely non-functional descriptive information limitations that do not carry patentable weight. The claims do not recite additional elements. These limitations are not abstract ideas, do not integrate the abstract ideas of the independent claims into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20 does not recite abstract ideas. Claim 20 comprises any of three instructional contents (recited as or). These limitations, the video tutorial, interactive simulation, and text-based guide, are characterizations of data, merely non-functional descriptive information limitations that do not carry patentable weight. The claim recites the server of claim 16. The additional element is a general-purpose computing structures, recited in the claims at a high level of generality. The specification does reveal that the systems recited in the claims or disclosed in the specification are configured to execute the instructions on general purpose computing structures. The claims and specification are focused on the steps taken, i.e. merely executing instructions on general purpose structures that are incidental or token additions to the claim. These claims are not a practical application, and the server does not amount to significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or no obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Want, US20180336044A1 in view of Fu, US20250182639A1.
Regarding Claims 1 and 16: Want discloses and Fu teaches:
Want discloses: causing playback, by a set top box (STB), of video content on a display device; [0004] (cause a STB to playback video content on a display device), [Abstract] “Sending the data may initiate one of a video playback,” [0021] (set-top box, where a STB is type of user device);
monitoring the STB to log user interactions with the STB leading to the playback of the video content through a service to a user interaction table (UIT) and to log operational data of a service on the STB supporting the playback to a health server; [0022] (a plurality of servers, where “health” server in the instant application recites a non-functional descriptive information limitation, i.e. a characterization of a server), [0037] (databases for storing, logging, and mapping user interactions, i.e. a UIT is a characterization of a database in the form of tables for storing, logging, and mapping interactions with a service that are implemented on the user device, which may be a STB as in [0021]), [0041] “monitors inputs and outputs to the electronic user device 102 as well as monitoring running processes and applications” (i.e. monitoring operations like the recited video playback and user interactions via a database and operational data servers of the service and device, where the characterization of a database as a UIT is also non-functional descriptive information);
identifying baseline interaction values comprising a number of inputs to cause the playback on the STB; [0031] (monitor the device for user interactions, logging interactions for processes that have been recently implemented, only identifying errors), [0037] “the user device interaction service 240 is able to detect when the user of a personal device 102 is having difficulty interacting with the personal device. Detection may occur through repetitive actions (e.g., repeatedly closing and opening an application, repeatedly backing out of and reentering the same functions in applications, etc.), excessive pauses or delays on certain screens of the user interface or on certain screens of applications, and the like,” (i.e. detecting user actions that differ from base interactions that result in the anticipated actions without difficulty, i.e. the system identifies the baseline and any interactions that are different from the baseline), [0042] (each different logged action is given a unique identifier, such that it would be reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to quantify, i.e. count, each different auction performed by a user as a baseline or an error interaction sequence), [0051] “repetitive interactions with the application without presumed intended result indicating difficulty,” (i.e. presumed intended results refers to the typical responses to particular interactions that might be anticipated after a user makes repeated interactions, disclosing that there are baseline reactions to baseline interactions. When the baseline reaction to the baseline interactions do not occur, it results in a difficulty), [0061] “next step or sequence of steps the user should perform” (implicitly disclosing that the steps are quantified and ordered for the baseline, which may be implicitly used to determine what occurred in error);
determining an interaction with the service is inefficient by comparing a number of the user interactions in the UIT with the number of inputs to cause the playback from the baseline; [0031] (monitor for changes in interactions or system and software data), [0037 and 0051] (user is having a trouble with the application showing changes in the interactions from baseline, i.e. inefficient interactions) “length of time between interactions exceeds a threshold while the user is still holding the electronic user device 102, repetitive interactions with the application without presumed intended result indicating difficulty, repeatedly opening the same application,” [0042] (each different logged action is given a unique identifier, such that it would be reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to quantify, i.e. count, each different auction performed by a user as a baseline or an error interaction sequence), [0059] (repetitive actions performed by the user), [0061] “next step or sequence of steps the user should perform” (implicitly disclosing that the steps are quantified and ordered for the baseline, which may be implicitly used to determine what occurred in error)
identifying hardware and software of the STB used to interact with the service; and [0041] (identify processes, applications, or interactions that input is directed to), [0049] (system identifies hardware information of device);
generating the instructional content for using the service in response to determining the interaction with the service is inefficient, and in response to the operational data identifying a problem with the STB, wherein the instructional content includes corrective actions to address the problem and images of an interface of the identified hardware and software of the STB. [0037] (map user interactions, and when the interactions show that the user “is having difficulty interacting,” i.e. the user interactions are inefficient, map the interactions “to a stored video, demonstration, tutorial, or simulation,” i.e. instructional content, where the system acts upon received electronic user device 102 information as well as received user interaction information with an electronic user device), [0041] (monitoring the device, through the software and running processes, based on the user’s actions), [0043] (enough information is stored in the operation data identifying the interactions of the user with the device, i.e. sufficient operation information to trigger determining the effect the user input causes on the running process or application and the user experience on the electronic user device), [0044] “identifies associate media based on the running process or application as well as the device interaction information,” (such that operation data is implemented to determine the condition, i.e. any problems or proper functioning of the user device), [0059] “searches for matching associated media based on the contextual elements in the information received and the indicated difficulty and a tutorial demonstrating the particular aspect causing the difficulty.”
Where Want does not disclose, Fu teaches: generating and presenting instructional content using a machine-learning system, [0023], [0094], [0104], and [0106] (different machine learning models/adaptive AI are utilized to perform the functions “for developing personalized instructional content include a computing device using software modules which capture data … train artificial intelligence models based on the acquired data, use the artificial intelligence models to generate instructional content personalized … based their input”).
Where Want partially discloses, Fu further teaches: Identifying baseline number of inputs to cause (action); [0085] (quantitative metrics and granular assessments), [0065] (fixed metrics for demonstrating mastery, i.e. a baseline to complete an action),
Comparing the number of user interactions with the number of inputs to cause (action); [0047] (compare injested data, i.e. user interactions, with stored data), [0053] (where the system comparing the results to desired results, i.e. compares the user interactions to the desired baseline interactions, to provide additional data in response to the comparison), [0085] (quantitative metrics and granular assessments), [0065] (fixed metrics for demonstrating learner mastery, i.e. a baseline to complete an action), [0066] (extracts the interactions that caused the error), [0069] (to generate supplemental generated instructional materials covering the key points or facts identified as missing)
Generate, in response to the operational data identifying a problem, corrective actions to address the problem; [0042] “identifying gaps or missing elements within ingested data and/or one or more databases (for example, missing data on a particular …. topic), directing retrieval of data responsive to the identified gaps,” (such that the system identifies, based on the quantifications and comparisons, what data will assist the user overcome the evaluated error), “[0192] “disclosure provides an innovative way to automate the labor-intensive and time-consuming process of course creation and personalized delivery.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the base invention of Want with the improvements of Fu. Want discloses a computer science-based invention for gathering user data and system/software data, determining changes in the user’s interactions or with the system/software, that represents the user experiencing difficulties in traversing a service that may also be newly added, generating appropriate instructional content, and displaying it to the user. Fu improves upon Want by incorporating machine learning, AI, and generative AI to make the instructional content more personalized. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded the predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Further, Wu discloses that incorporating adaptive AI and ML systems into generating instructional content, improves the suitability of the instructional content outputs for users based on interactions [0058].
Regarding claim 2: Want discloses and Fu teaches:
Want discloses: further comprising identifying the service as newly available on the STB. [0031] “retrieve information about tasks that have been most recently started or visited … In another example, accessibility event objects may be sent as part of the user interaction information to the auxiliary system 106 whenever the content of a custom view changes,” (monitor for changes in interactions or system and software, where a software change, i.e. content of a custom view changes, indicates a newly available service), [0040] “allows the user to interact with the electronic user device 102 to try out features as well as any applications 218 installed on the electronic user device … An input may register from the electronic user device 102 being picked up or interacted with initially, with the initial interaction input,” (where trying features or applications out and initial interaction implicitly discloses a new service based on user input).
Regarding claims 3 and 17: Want discloses and Fu teaches:
Want discloses: wherein the instructional content for using the service is generated in response to identifying the service as newly available on the STB. [0031] “retrieve information about tasks that have been most recently started or visited … In another example, accessibility event objects may be sent as part of the user interaction information to the auxiliary system 106 whenever the content of a custom view changes,” (monitor for changes in interactions or system and software, where a software change, i.e. content of a custom view changes, indicates a newly available service), [0040] “allows the user to interact with the electronic user device 102 to try out features as well as any applications 218 installed on the electronic user device … An input may register from the electronic user device 102 being picked up or interacted with initially, with the initial interaction input,” (where trying features or applications out and initial interaction implicitly discloses a new service based on user input). [0037] (map user interactions, and when the interactions show that the user “is having difficulty interacting,” i.e. the user interactions are inefficient, map the interactions “to a stored video, demonstration, tutorial, or simulation,” i.e. instructional content).
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 18: Want discloses and Fu teaches:
Want discloses: further comprising delivering the instructional content through the STB. [0028] (instructional content that is delivered, may occur internal to the device itself).
Regarding Claims 11, and 19: Want discloses and Fu teaches:
Want discloses: further comprising delivering the instructional content through a peripheral device. [0045] “receiving information from an electronic user device 102 and initiating one of a video, tutorial, demonstration, or simulation on an auxiliary system.”
Regarding Claims 6 and 12: Want discloses and Fu teaches:
Want discloses: wherein the instructional content comprises a video tutorial. [0045] “receiving information from an electronic user device 102 and initiating one of a video, tutorial, demonstration, or simulation on an auxiliary system.”
Regarding claims 7 and 13: Want discloses and Fu teaches:
Want discloses: wherein the instructional content comprises an interactive simulation. [0044] “The associated media can be a related video, demonstration, tutorial, simulation, etc.”
Regarding claims 8 and 14: Want discloses and Fu teaches:
Want discloses: wherein the instructional content comprises a text-based guide. [0061] (text-based guide)
Regarding claim 9: Want discloses and Fu teaches:
Want discloses: causing playback, by a set top box (STB), of video content on a display device; [0004] (cause a STB to playback video content on a display device), [Abstract] “Sending the data may initiate one of a video playback,” [0021] (set-top box, where a STB is type of user device);
monitoring the STB to log user interactions with the STB leading to the playback of the video content through a service to a user interaction table (UIT) and to log operational data of a service on the STB supporting the playback to a health server; [0004] (user interactions may cause a STB to playback video content on a display device), [0022] (a plurality of servers, where “health” server in the instant application recites a non-functional descriptive information limitation, i.e. a characterization of a server), [0037] (databases for storing, logging, and mapping user interactions, i.e. a UIT is a characterization of a database in the form of tables for storing, logging, and mapping interactions with a service that are implemented on the user device, which may be a STB as in [0021]), [0041] “monitors inputs and outputs to the electronic user device 102 as well as monitoring running processes and applications” (i.e. monitoring operations like the recited video playback and user interactions via a database and operational data servers of the service and device, where the characterization of a database as a UIT is also non-functional descriptive information), [0013] (“The electronic user devices may be available to customers for trial use,” explicitly discloses a newly available service i.e. the trial use of a phone service that is not owned by the customer, for any customer, displayed in a retail store);
identifying baseline interaction values comprising a plurality of input services STB; [0031] (monitor the device for user interactions, logging interactions for processes that have been recently implemented, identifying errors), [0037] “the user device interaction service 240 is able to detect when the user of a personal device 102 is having difficulty interacting with the personal device. Detection may occur through repetitive actions (e.g., repeatedly closing and opening an application, repeatedly backing out of and reentering the same functions in applications, etc.), excessive pauses or delays on certain screens of the user interface or on certain screens of applications, and the like,” (i.e. detecting user actions that differ from base interactions that result in the anticipated actions without difficulty, i.e. the system identifies the baseline and any interactions that are different from the baseline), [0042] (each different logged action is given a unique identifier, such that it would be reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to quantify, i.e. count, each different auction performed by a user as a baseline or an error interaction sequence), [0051] “repetitive interactions with the application without presumed intended result indicating difficulty,” (i.e. presumed intended results refers to the typical responses to particular interactions that might be anticipated after a user makes repeated interactions, disclosing that there are baseline reactions to baseline interactions. When the baseline reaction to the baseline interactions do not occur, it results in a difficulty), [0061] “next step or sequence of steps the user should perform” (implicitly disclosing that the steps are quantified and ordered for the baseline, which may be implicitly used to determine what occurred in error);
identifying the service as newly available on the STB by comparing the user interactions to the baseline input, and in response to the operational data including information for the service; (where allowing the user to try out new features and applications implicitly discloses that the service is newly available), [0031] “retrieve information about tasks that have been most recently started or visited … In another example, accessibility event objects may be sent as part of the user interaction information to the auxiliary system 106 whenever the content of a custom view changes,” (monitor for changes in interaction and software, where a software change, i.e. content of a custom view changes, indicates a newly available service), [0040] “allows the user to interact with the electronic user device 102 to try out features as well as any applications 218 installed on the electronic user device … An input may register from the electronic user device 102 being picked up or interacted with initially, with the initial interaction input,” (where trying features or applications out and initial interaction implicitly discloses a new service based on user input).
identifying hardware of the STB and a software version of the service used to interact with the service; and [0004] (identifier of the software, i.e. versions are one of a non-limiting and standard ways to resolve identifiers identifying software), [0041] (identify processes, applications, or interactions that input is directed to), [0049] (system identifies hardware information of device), [0031] (identifying data about services that may include the software version running on the STB user device);
generating the instructional content for using the service in response to identifying the service as newly available on the STB, wherein the instructional content includes a first image of an first interface of the identified hardware, and a second image of a second interface of the identified software version of the service running on the STB. [0031] (retrieve information on any processes that are in an error condition, retrieve information about tasks that have been most recently started or visited, retrieve information about a running process, retrieve information about a particular service that is currently running in the system), [0037] (map user interactions, and when the interactions show that the user “is having difficulty interacting,” i.e. the user interactions are inefficient, map the interactions “to a stored video, demonstration, tutorial, or simulation,” i.e. instructional content), [0004] “cause the auxiliary interaction device to initiate a video playback, a tutorial, a demonstration, or a simulation presented on the display, the selection of which may be based on the model of the user device,” (i.e. at least a first image of a first interface of the identified hardware), [0030] (data about software that may include release information for the operating system, i.e. software version, which implicitly discloses a software version), [0031]( transparent overlay software to retrieve information about the services, including the version of the software service running, overlay is the second image of the second interface of software version of the service running on the STB, displayed as a second interface),
Where Want does not disclose: generating and presenting instructional content using a machine-learning system,
Fu teaches: [0023], [0094], [0104], and [0106] (different machine learning models/adaptive AI are utilized to perform the functions “for developing personalized instructional content include a computing device using software modules which capture data … train artificial intelligence models based on the acquired data, use the artificial intelligence models to generate instructional content personalized … based their input”).
Identifying baseline number of inputs to cause (action); [0085] (quantitative metrics and granular assessments), [0065] (fixed metrics for demonstrating mastery, i.e. a baseline to complete an action),
Comparing the number of user interactions with the number of inputs to cause (action); [0047] (compare ingested data, i.e. user interactions, with stored data), [0053] (where the system comparing the results to desired results, i.e. compares the user interactions to the desired baseline interactions, to provide additional data in response to the comparison), [0085] (quantitative metrics and granular assessments), [0065] (fixed metrics for demonstrating learner mastery, i.e. a baseline to complete an action), [0066] (extracts the interactions that caused the error), [0069] (to generate supplemental generated instructional materials covering the key points or facts identified as missing)
Generate, in response to the operational data identifying a problem, corrective actions to address the problem; [0042] “identifying gaps or missing elements within ingested data and/or one or more databases (for example, missing data on a particular …. topic), directing retrieval of data responsive to the identified gaps,” (such that the system identifies, based on the quantifications and comparisons, what data will assist the user overcome the evaluated error), “[0192] “disclosure provides an innovative way to automate the labor-intensive and time-consuming process of course creation and personalized delivery.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the base invention of Want with the improvements of Fu. Want discloses a computer science-based invention for gathering user data and system/software data, determining changes in the user’s interactions or with the system/software, that represents the user experiencing difficulties in traversing a service that may also be newly added, generating appropriate instructional content, quantifying data, reconciling the interactions with the baseline interactions and providing instructions to showing corrective actions that address the problem, and displaying it to the user. Fu improves upon Want by incorporating machine learning, AI, and generative AI to make the instructional content more personalized. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded the predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Further, Wu discloses that incorporating adaptive AI and ML systems into generating instructional content, improves the suitability of the instructional content outputs for users based on interactions
Regarding claim 20: Want discloses and Fu teaches: the server of claim 16,
Want discloses: wherein the instructional content comprises a video tutorial, an interactive simulation, or a text-based guide. [0044] “The associated media can be a related video, demonstration, tutorial, simulation, etc.,” and [0061] (text-based guide).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA HATCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1393. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571)270-3923. 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.
BRENDAN O’SHEA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626
ANGELA HATCH
Examiner
Art Unit 3626
/ANGELA HATCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights