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
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to claims 11 and 20 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 11-20 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are enough to overcome the 112(a) rejection. Applicant asserts that a person having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the claimed "adjustment of the characteristic" and "modification of access to a feature" describe implementation of the disclosed reward-distribution logic through a streaming service interface, consistent with the system environment shown in FIG. 1 and method flow of FIG. 2. The specification further describes how the server determines, via a ruleset stored in a database, whether an identified real-world action "necessitate adjustment of the characteristic" and thereafter "ascertains a type of the reward" and "distributes ... the reward of the ascertained type to the user'' (See Id. at ¶4045). Those disclosures directly correspond to the claimed determination of whether a predetermined context necessitates adjustment of a characteristic and the subsequent modification of access to a platform feature.
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 reminds examiners that claims "which cannot be practically performed in the human mind do not fall within the judicial exception of mental steps," and cautions against overextending the "mental process" category to computer-executed analyses such as image recognition that by their nature require computer processing at scale. The examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 follow instructions in order to unlock a reward, remaining an abstract idea under certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant asserts the recited computer-vision and database-matching operations are expressly used to change the state and operation of another technology the media streaming platform by "modifying ... access to a feature ... for a user profile" based on the detected real-world context tied to a specific video. That is a concrete control action that changes platform functionality for a particular account, not merely "displaying," "storing," or "reporting" information. This is the kind of meaningful limitation and technological improvement the PEG recognizes as integration into a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, the claim does not disclose how the identification of an object in the image data using an image analysis process is performed. 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).
Applicant asserts that the coordinated pipeline, which ties real-world, computerrecognized context to content-specific access control within a streaming platform, is not a conventional "apply it on a computer" scenario. It provides a specific, technical solution to a technical problem: dynamically controlling access to platform features using server-side computer vision and content-linked context data, without manual user input. The 2019 Revised PEG and its October 2019 Update explain that such nonconventional, non-generic ordered combinations that improve a computer system's operation or another technology's functionality satisfy Step 2B. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The invention does not improve the user computing device 105 such as a smartphone used to take pictures of locations associated with travel shows or a selfie of the user cooking a meal associated with a cooking show, see at least ¶39. As broadly disclosed, the invention identifies an object in a picture taken by the user with the aid of the user device, and analyzes the image in order to determine whether that object matches a predetermined object in a database. Considered as an ordered combination, the 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited art documented by the Examiner, taken individually or in combination, discloses or suggests the features in claims 1, 11, and 20 nor could a person skilled in the art easily conceive of such features even in the light of common technical knowledge at the time of filing. Therefore, pending claims 1-20 are therefore distinguished from the prior arts cited by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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: 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 a predetermined context associated with an article of multimedia content present on the media-streaming platform, wherein the article of multimedia content is a video, and wherein the identifying comprises: 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; and modifying, based on the ascertaining, the access to the feature of the ascertained type for a user profile associated with the media-streaming platform”. 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 “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” in particular “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” and “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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 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 (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. 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).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 02/09/2026
Prosecution Insights