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 Claim
This action is in response to communications filed on 13 of April 2026.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that operations disclosed in Claim 1 cannot be performed "in the human mind" and are not "certain methods of organizing human activity." The August 2025 Memorandum specifically cautions against expanding the mental-process grouping to encompass computer-executed analyses such as image recognition. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Desjardins does not change how examination is performed or nullifies the 2019 PEG. Prong I of step 2A evaluates whether the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) if the claim recites and exception then we advance to Prong Two which evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements (e.g. computer components) that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. A human is capable of recognizing locations, items, people, etc. when analyzing a picture, which is an abstract idea. The claims do not disclose steps of how the computer performs the recognition of images and the specification does not disclose any machine learning/artificial intelligence tool (e.g. computer processing) used in such a task. Further, a human can analyze images in order to identify/determine whether a real-world context (i.e. a geographical location) corresponds to a predetermined context, and remaining an abstract idea under mental process.
Applicant asserts that as outlined in§ 2106.04(d)(1) of the MPEP, "a claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit and the MPEP agree that one must rely on the specification for determining whether the claims are directed to an improvement in computer technology. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the specification may help illuminate the true focus of a claim, when analyzing patent eligibility, reliance on the specification must always yield to the claim language in identifying that focus." Id. at 766; see also Trinity Info Media, 72 F.4th at 1363 ("Our focus is on the claims, as informed by the specification."). At bottom, we must "articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful." Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Therefore, the invention remains an observation (i.e. a mental process) of determining the recommendation information corresponding to the user identifier based on skills and a mathematical calculation (i.e. a mathematical concept) of determining a scored value via a scoring model merely applied by generic computer components disclosed at a high level of generality and do not satisfy the Alice Test. As mentioned above, the claim does not disclose how the image analysis process identifies an object in the image data. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is reasonable to interpret this as merely a software/hardware tool that interacts with a human who will determine whether any object within an image meet a certain predetermined context. Further, to show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Mere automation of a manual process or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.04(a); MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.05(f); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The applicant further asserts that The claimed process instead links automated image-derived context recognition to server-side access control. The practical effect is a new platform control mechanism in which feature availability is dynamically determined through processor-executed recognition and database verification rather than manual configuration or preassigned permissions. This changes how the platform manages feature access and therefore alters system operation, not merely user behavior. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, these are not claimed steps nor does the specification discloses such steps. The rationale above applies here as well.
Applicant asserts that The Office provides no factual support demonstrating that such automated context-verified feature control was well-understood, routine, and conventional. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner never raised Berkheimer or whether the features mentioned by the applicant are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Instead, the examiner resorted to disclosing that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner notes that Figs. 6 and 7 disclosed as evidence provide static GUI outputs where a user can hit YES or NO or press the camera icon. Examiner also notes that the items disclosed in ¶29 of the instant application are all off-the=shelf readily available items such as tablets, PCs, set-top boxes, streaming device, and television, and none which the claims improve. Considered as an ordered combination, these generic computer components of applicant’s claimed invention add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. For example, claim 1 does not purport to improve the functioning of the computer components themselves. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 therefore, 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 11 recites “at least on processor; at least one database; and a server in network communication with the at least one database, the server configured to perform operations including: identifying a geographic location of a user computing device utilizing one or more location-aware technologies including a Global Positioning System, a Wi-Fi triangulation system, or an Enhanced Observed Time Difference (E-OTD) system; comparing the identified geographic location of the user computing device to a known location of a predetermined context associated with an article of multimedia content corresponding to a media-streaming platform; based on the comparing, determining that the user computing device has a geographically proximate location to the predetermined context; based on the determining, transmitting a first notification to a user device hosting the media-streaming platform, wherein the first notification provides i) an indication that user is geographically proximate to the predetermined context, and ii) a first interaction option associated with the predetermined context; responsive to detecting a selection of the interaction option, transmitting one or more instructions corresponding to the identified geographic location of the user computing device to the known location of the predetermined context; receiving an indication of a real-world context of a user computing device based on image data received from the user computing device; identifying that the real-world context corresponds to the predetermined context by: identifying an object in the image data using an image analysis process facilitated by one or more processors associated with the computer system; and determining, by using the one or more processors to access a real-world context database, that the object in the image data corresponds to a predetermined object associated with the article of multimedia content; determining whether satisfaction of the predetermined context necessitates adjustment of the characteristic of the media-streaming platform, wherein the adjustment of the characteristic corresponds to modification of access to a feature associated with the media-streaming platform, wherein the feature corresponds to a video streaming feature; ascertaining a type of the feature, subsequent to determining that the satisfaction of the predetermined context does necessitate adjustment of the characteristic, wherein the type of the feature is based on the video that the predetermined context is associated with; modifying, based on the ascertaining, the access to the feature of the ascertained type for a user profile associated with the media-streaming platform by altering an access permission associated with the user profile on the media-streaming platform; and transmitting a second notification to a user device hosting the media-streaming platform, wherein the second notification provides i) an indication of the altered access permission associated with the feature, and ii) a second interaction option to view the feature”. Claims 1 and 20 disclose similar limitations as Claim 11 as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1, 11, and 20 are directed to “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1, 8, 11, 18, and 20 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1, 11, and 20 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element directed at receiving data (italicized above) reflects insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 8 and 18 recite additional element “screen of a user computer device”. This is a generic computer component recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1, 8, 11, 18, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶29-30 “The user computing device 105 may include a display/user interface (UI) 105A, a processor 105B, a memory 105C, and/or a network interface 105D. The user computing device 105 may be a personal computer (PC), a tablet PC, a set-top box (STB), a streaming device (e.g., Apple TV®, Amazon Fire®, Roku® player, Google Chromecast®), a television (TV), a smart TV, a gaming console, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile device, a palmtop computer, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, etc. The user computing device 105 may execute, by the processor 105B, an operating system (O/S) and at least one application (each stored in memory 105C). The application may be a browser program or a mobile application program (which may also be a browser program in a mobile O/S). The application may be able to generate and/or distribute rewards of various types to the user, based on instructions/information received from the server 115. The computer server 115 may include a display/UI 115A, a processor 115B, a memory 115C, and/or a network interface 115D. The server 115 may be a computer, system of computers (e.g., rack server(s)), and/or or a cloud service computer system. The server 115 may execute, by the processor 115B, an operating system (O/S) and at least one instance of a server program (each stored in memory 115C). The server 115 may store or have access to information from real-world action database 120 and rewards database 125. The display/UI 115A may be a touch screen or a display with other input systems (e.g., mouse, keyboard, etc.) for an operator of the server 115 to control the functions of the server 115 (e.g., update the server program and/or the server information)”.
Claims 2-7, 9-10, 11-17, and 19 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571)272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 6/4/2026
Prosecution Insights