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 2 January 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 2 January 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, the applicant’s assertions that the claim language “generating instructional content for using the service,” must be performed regardless of claim language because the claim does not include terminology like “if, while, when,” or other language rendering the feature as optional, is not persuasive. The claim limitations explicitly recite “determining an interaction with the service is inefficient…” and “generating instructional content for using the service in response to determining the interaction with the service is inefficient.” If the determining limitation does not find an inefficient interaction, the feature that occurs “in response to” this limitation is equivalent to other language rendering the feature as optionally occurring if the claim does not determine inefficiencies of the interaction with the service. The generating limitation that would eliminate the optional nature of the performance might include “In response to determining an interaction efficiency, generate instructional content” however, this would not present the required content for helping a user learn to be more efficient. Therefore, generating does not occur when the reactions are efficient, as claimed, making it a contingent function. The claim feature of generating is contingent, explicitly, on finding inefficiency.
Further, the note from the Examiner was a note to explain how the claim language is being interpreted. The amended claim language does not amend the claim language in a manner that averts the issue. The Examiner’s note did not represent that the claim was not interpreted as a whole, or that the particular contingent claim limitation was not examined at all. In fact, the Examiner’s note on the claim interpretation was in place to assist in finding terminology for the claims that does not appear to limit the claims in a manner that may not have been intended. All claim limitations were fully examined, and are currently being fully examined for the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, which did not change by the re-ordering of the claim language, nor by the alteration of the playback device to a set top box. The Examiner Strongly maintains that the Office Action made no omissions of claim terms as petitioned by the Applicant’s Counsel and/or Agents, in the Arguments. The set top box is still being applied as a tool used to implement the instructions to implement the abstract ideas, i.e. apply it.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically discussing the abstract ideas, arguments to the Examiner’s assertions of abstract ideas, identifying the additional elements aside from the set top box. The Applicant’s assertion that the set top box, an additional element, integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application and amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas, are not persuasive. The Applicant discloses the steps of the claim, which encompass the abstract ideas. Applying abstract ideas on a set top box used as a tool are not indicative of a practical application, nor do these actions make the set top box into significantly more than the abstract idea when merely used as a tool.
Please find the identical 35 U.S.C. § 101 below, updated to change the playback device to a set top box, which is also a playback device. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 2 January 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8 and 11, the applicant’s assertions that Fu, which claims priority to provisional application, differs substantially from the utility application in length, arrangement, and content, are not persuasive. The sections utilized for the prior art from Fu are covered fully by the provisional application, as asserted in the Office Action. Please find the Provisional application attached for reference.
On pages 8-11, the Applicant’s arguments that Want does not disclose numerous features of the instant claims are not persuasive. The Applicant is asserting that literal words of the claims are not recited in the prior art references. The Examiner has added to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection below in order to clarify, however no changes have been made aside from adding a limitation to show a set top box.
On page 10, the Applicant’s arguments that the Examiner’s use of official notice is traversed and disagreed with, are both not persuasive and are Moot. The Examiner did not use “Official Notice” at all in the office action. The Prior art of Want specifically discloses the term “presumed intended results,” and the Examiner interprets these to be interactions that would be the baseline, i.e. if a user were to swipe, the intended results would be that the page would move in the direction of a swipe, where selection of an item would be different than the baseline intended result of the action. In this case, the intended results of the user interactions are noted as the baseline interactions disclosed by Want. The term intended use is typically a term in the art, in this case, it is a direct quotation from the prior art.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. The Applicant’s rearrangement of the independent claims does not change the interpreted meaning, and therefore does not change the rejection. Further, characterizations of databases or exact names of features cannot be utilized to show patentability over prior art. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has updated the rejection, below, to offer additional verbiage for clarifications
Please find the updated 35 U.S.C. § 103 below, updated to change the playback device to a set top box, which is also a playback device, and to add clarification to the office action. 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 1-20 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: The claims recite the following functions: monitor set top box, log interactions and operational data, identify baseline interactions, compare interactions and data with baselines, determine inefficiency, identify user device and its software, if the system determines an inefficiency of the user, generate instructional content if inefficient 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 claims utilize user data or user adjacent device hardware and software data to assist users by delivering generated content for newly introduced products or services when the user is “inefficient” 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 inefficient user interactions. The claims each recite an abstract idea.
2A Prong 2: The claims recite the health server, set top box, the service, 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 set top box 102 communicatively coupled to a source of media content, for presentation on a display 104. Set top box 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. 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 system 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, set top box, generating content, content delivery systems, general purpose computing structures, set top box, 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.
Regarding Claim 9: The claim recites the following functions: monitor set top box, 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.
2A Prong 2: The claims recite the health servers, set top box, the service, a user interaction table, hardware, and software, which are additional elements. According to the specification ¶ [0015] “Content delivery system 100 includes set top box 102 communicatively coupled to a source of media content, for presentation on a display 104. Set top box 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 instructional content, user interactions, operational data, baseline interaction values, newly available proof data, 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. 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, set top box, generating content, content delivery systems, general purpose computing structures, set top box, 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
Claims 2 and 15 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 set top box, 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 set top box, 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 4-5, 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 set top box, and claims 5, 11, and 19: delivering the content through a peripheral device. The generating step is a contingent step, that may not occur if the data does not show the claim for which these claims depend contingency, either a newly available service, or inefficient user interactions. 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 set top box, 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 an 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, 12-14, and 20 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; and claim 20 is any of the three (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 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. The additional elements in these claims are merely general-purpose computing structures, which = are recited in the claims and disclosed in the specification 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 claim s are not a practical application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Want, US20180336044A1 in view of Fu, US20250182639A1.
Regarding Claims 1 and 16: Want discloses: monitoring a set top box to log user interactions with a service to a user interaction table (UIT) and to log operational data of the service to a health server; [0021] (set-top box, where a set top box is type of user 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), [0041] “monitors inputs and outputs to the electronic user device 102 as well as monitoring running processes and applications” (i.e. monitoring user interactions via a database and operational data of the service and device, where the characterization of a database as a UIT is non-functional descriptive information);
identifying baseline interaction values for the service; [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), [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);
determining an interaction with the service is inefficient by comparing the user interactions and the operational data with the baseline interaction values to; [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;”
identifying hardware and software of the set top box 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 instructional content for using the service in response to determining the interaction with the service is inefficient, wherein the instructional content includes images of an interface of the identified hardware and software of the set top box. [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 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”).
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
Regarding claims 2 and 15: Want discloses: further comprising identifying the service as newly available on the set top box. [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: wherein the instructional content for using the service is generated in response to identifying the service as newly available on the set top box. [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: further comprising delivering the instructional content through the set top box. [0028] (instructional content that is delivered, may occur internal to the device itself).
Regarding Claims 5, 11, and 19: 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: 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: 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: wherein the instructional content comprises a text-based guide. [0061] (text-based guide)
Regarding claim 9: Want discloses:
monitoring a set top box to log user interactions with a service to a user interaction table (UIT) and to log operational data of the service to a health server; [[0021] (set-top box, where a set top box is type of user 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), [0041] “monitors inputs and outputs to the electronic user device 102 as well as monitoring running processes and applications” (i.e. monitoring user interactions via a database and operational data of the service and device, where the characterization of a database as a UIT is non-functional descriptive information);
identifying baseline interaction values for the service; [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), [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);
identifying the service as newly available on the set top box by assessing the user interactions and the operational data; (where allowing the user to try out 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 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).
identifying hardware and software of the set top box 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 instructional content for using the service in response to identifying the service as newly available on the set top box, wherein the instructional content includes images of an interface of the identified hardware and software of the set top box. [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 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”).
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
Regarding claim 20: 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.
ANGELA HATCH
Examiner
Art Unit 3626
/ANGELA HATCH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626