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 filed by the applicant on 29 June 2026.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-19, and new claims 21 -22 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 11 and 20 have been cancelled.
This action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 June 2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 29 June 2026, with regards to 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ arguments from page 8, asserting that the amended claims are directed to a technical improvement over prior art of record, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, are not germane to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. That is, prior art is not considered in terms of a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection.
Applicants’ arguments from page 8, asserting that the amended claims are “de facto, subject matter eligible and eligible for streamlined analyses, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, are not persuasive nor probative. The arguments merely recite the amended claims without providing any grounds for the assertions. In fact, on page 9, the applicant supports the rejection reasoning, that the claims recite an abstract idea, because they make the assertion of the traditional settings of producing the same functions, that were historically performed by a human, manually taking a screenshot, saving the file, logging into social media, and uploading the content to create a post. As the Examiner asserts in the complete rejection, below, the claims merely perform the historically human performed tasks as the applicant asserts. Merely automating historically human tasks by implementing them using general-purpose computing structures and software based instructions, as argued on page 9, amounts to adding the words “apply it,” i.e. mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas using the computing structures as tools.
In claim 1, as asserted on pages 9-10 of the arguments, the applicant adds the media guidance server and a recommendation engine, and in claim 12, the applicant adds the control circuitry and the recommendation engine, each inserted as an afterthought, “for performing” the functions previously recited. The addition of these server, engine, and circuitry, do not alter the general analyses for abstract ideas. In fact, the analyses remain the same. The changes exist with the additional elements, of which the server, engine, and circuitry are additionally included in the additional elements category. These elements are general-purpose computing structures and a general-purpose recommendation engine. The computing structures are recited at a high level of generality such that they may be any off the shelf computing structures. The recommendation engine is also recited at a high level of generality without reciting how the recommendation engine works to select data or the mechanism that performs the selecting. That is, a recommendation engine, as recited, could be any form of software based selection processes, and the claims do not limit the scope of said engine in a patentable way. The specification further discloses that the OTT server merely receives the solution from the recommendation engine that receives data and returns data without further disclosure of how the engine performs the functions or what mechanism is implemented to perform said functions. The limitation for transmitting data to trigger posting the data is another additional element. However, the specification does not reveal advances to sending, receiving, or transmitting data, media guidance servers, recommendation engines, network connections, or control circuitry. Thus, there are no additional elements that are indicative of a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Applicants’ arguments, on page 9, asserting the instant invention “relies on algorithmic hardware execution,” are not persuasive because the claims are recited without any algorithms, thus the claims may be performed in any manner that is reasonably interpretable under the broadest reasonable interpretation of their plain English meaning. The specification discloses that algorithms may be implemented in at least [0096] for determining various solutions and performing functions related to all processes and feature. However, the algorithmic features from AI, ML, or NLP, disclosed in the specification, cannot be read into the claims. The applicant’s further assertion that the claims extract visual objects from the media stream’s data structure, is misleading because the claims look at a historical consumption. The applicants’ assertion paints a live view analysis, but for the actual claim language.
To recap, based on the arguments on pages 9-10, the mere implementation of a backend network strategy to perform the functions explicitly disclosed by the applicant as wholly human tasks that were performed historically and in traditional settings by humans manually taking screenshots and posting them to social media, the claim language amendments do not recite a patentable invention. In fact, MPEP 2106.05(a) specifically discloses that merely automating historically human performed processes by implementing general-purpose computing structures applied as tools to perform software based processes is not an improvement to the computing structures, or to any other technology or technical field. Without recitation of the actual technical mechanisms, i.e. the detailed algorithm or machine learning model processes that perform the analyzing, determining, selecting transmitting, posting, etc., in a non-abstract idea manner, or the implementation of additional elements that integrate said abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more, automating historically human tasks with a machine to machine pipeline is not an improvement to the computers or the pipeline.
Lastly, with regards to the new claims, 21 and 22, the applicants’ assertions of network signaling packets and programmatic API interfacing to dynamically link accounts and authorize communication is merely linking accounts and authorizing communications that is also a historically human performed task, merely applied using general-purpose computing and software based structures. These two claims do not add a practical application or significantly more.
Please find the full 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, reflecting the amendments, below.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is Maintained.
.S.C. § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 29 June 2026, with regards to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the applicants’ arguments for claim 1, from page 10, the assertion that McGuire does not disclose selecting personalized content calculated based on at least genre preferences, are not persuasive. McGuire discloses in at least the citations below and [0006] “determining a score representing relevance for each of the visual indications based on user data and the metadata and/or the one or more other properties of the visual indication and selecting the most relevant visual indication based on the score.” Further, while the rejection, in full, is based on obviousness over multiple prior art disclosures, the rejection for that particular limitation is based on only the primary prior art. Genre preference is disclosed as data implemented in the recommendation calculations of McGuire. Therefore, McGuire anticipates this particular limitation, i.e. a person of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated that McGuire could have applied filtering to the recommendation, to filter for the user’s preference based on their genre to chooses the most relevant image recommendation.
The applicants’ assertions, on page 10, that McGuire only performs localized asset description modifications, and LuVogt only performs aggerate data feed curating and filtering are not persuasive. The comparison in the same paragraph does not represent direct citations implemented by the Examiner for the particular limitations as argued. The assertions following, with regards to McGuire only performing within it’s own local media interface, and LuVogt filtering only incoming feed content, are also neither persuasive nor probative. The applicant does not address the where their assertions are in the prior art, where the presented parentheticals/citations support or divert from these assertions based on the Examiners’ rejection for the asserted claim language they are addressing.
The instant limitations asserted in the paragraph bridging pages 10 and 11 are so far disassociated from the claim language, that the entire paragraph is not persuasive. This is the same issue for the following two paragraphs, where the Applicant makes assertions that don’t correlate with the citations/parentheticals from the office action, as applied to the claim language.
The applicants’ assertions on page 11, that McGuire only changes image size or textual length based on a historical access count metric, and LuVogt only applies passive weight filters to generic incoming text documents, are also not representative of the citations presented by the Examiner, and are therefore not probative nor persuasive. The applicants’ assertions that the prior art only uses user setup configurations are not persuasive. As is shown in the prior art updated rejection below, LuVogt also passively triggers an update to the social media sites, where the initial setup provides the user’s secure authorization to passively post on their behalf. In combination, McGuire and LuVogt have open lines of communication, LuVogt further initializes the line of communication before, securing the connection based on user authorization, and passively triggers updates between the service server and other media services and servers including social media without limits to the inclusivity of the services and servers.
The applicants’ assertion that McGuire only performs localized asset description modifications and LuVogt only performs curating and filtering of aggregate data feeds, are not persuasive. The applicants’ assertions are presented without directing the Office to the locations in the prior art, from which these assertions would be revealed. Further, the assertions are broad generalizations of the prior art disclosures that continue to fail at aligning with the citations and parentheticals applied to particular claim limitation language. While the applicants’ assertions may be comprised of elements that could be disclosed in the prior art, the applicant asserts these features without direction for finding said citation locations in either McGuire or LuVogt. Therefore, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner is not asserting anything regarding the general presence of the applicant’s prior art assertions somewhere in the prior art disclosures. Alternately, the Examiner is asserting that the rejections, below, disclose that the instant claim limitations are present within the directed, paragraph based, prior art disclosures as presented via citations and/or parentheticals taken from the cited paragraphs, and as required by statute, in the prior art.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) 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.
Please find the full 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, updated to reflect the amendments for claims 1-10, 12-19, and 21-22, below.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-19, and 21 -22 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 12: Step 2A Prong 1: These claims recite analyzing data history, determining a data preference, selecting visual data from a grouping of visual data based on the preference, and transmitting and posting said data, that are abstract ideas in the category of mental processes and in the category of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" because these are automations of functions that were once performed by humans, as further asserted in the applicants’ arguments on page 9. The certain methods of organizing human activity category of abstract ideas are further grouped into the sub-categories of both commercial interactions due to marketing and advertisement, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, like posting and interacting through social media (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional computing elements recited in claim 1 are a media guidance server and a network. The specification discloses, at least in [0041], OTT servers, which are equivalent to a media guidance server based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, since the media guidance server performs the recited tasks but is not explicitly disclosed. The additional computing elements recited in claim 12 is a system, communications circuitry, and control circuitry. The specification discloses in ¶ [0100] that the system and communications and control circuitries are general purpose computing structures, disclosed at a high level of generality. The additional elements in claims 1 and 12 are the OTT application, OTT account, social media platform, social media account, and a social media feed, and recommendation engine, i.e. an application for making recommendations. The accounts and feed are utilized as databases. The applications are disclosed as instructions, i.e. software. Both the databases and the software are disclosed at a high level of generality. The computing structures, databases, and software are merely tools used to implement the abstract ideas, i.e. the claims add the words “apply it” to the abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional elements that are merely characterizations of data, i.e. non-functional descriptive information limitations that do are not abstract ideas, do not carry patentable weight, and cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites the following limitations: causing to post, which is merely transmitting data. The specification does not reveal advances to or transmitting data.
Claim 1 recites “by a media guidance server,” and claim 12 recites “by the control circuitry," such that
The specification does reveal that the applications recited in claim 1 are instructions configured to execute the steps of the method. The specification does reveal that the applications recited in claim 12 are configured to execute the instructions on general purpose computing structures. The claims and specification are focused on the steps taken and the non-functional descriptive information that are manipulated, i.e. merely executing instructions in a method in claim 1 or on general purpose computing structures in claim 12, that are incidental or token additions to the claim, and that do not alter or affect how the steps of analyzing, determining, selecting, or transmitting to trigger posting are performed (MPEP 2015.06(h)) and (MPEP 2106.05(f)). There is nothing in the claims that limit the scope how the functions may be performed to reach the functional outcomes, or that limit the scope of the mechanism that does the performing The claims 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: This analysis for Step 2B is commensurate with the analysis above for step 2A, Prong 2. Therefore, for the same reasons disclosed above, the additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, when taken individually and in combination, also do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the identified abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05). The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent Claims
Regarding Claims 2, 6, 13, and 16: These claims further recite the same abstract ideas and additional elements as the independent claims above, with the exact same analyses. The claims were amended to incorporate the recommendation engine as was added to the independent claims and with no changes to the analyses. For the same reasons, these claims cannot be integrated into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 3, 5, and 14: These claims do not recite any abstract ideas, as they merely add further definitions to the visual data, in claims 3 and 14: the visual data is distinct visual data from the same data asset; and in claim 5, the selected visual data from a particular asset is personalized for the particular user, based on a preference. There are no additional elements in claims 3 and 5, and claim 14 recites the system. However, since there are no abstract ideas, these claims cannot be integrated into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Regarding claims 4 and 15: These claims further append the abstract ideas of the independent claims, adding boundary conditions to the selecting function, such that selecting visual data from a particular data asset occurs in response to a user interacting with an asset related social media platform post, where the particular asset related social media post is posted by the OTT application. This is an abstract idea in the same categories of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" because these are automations of functions that were once performed by humans, in the sub-categories of both commercial interactions due to marketing and advertisement, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, like posting and interacting through of social media (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional computing element recited in claim 15 are a system and control circuitry. The specification discloses in ¶ [0100] that these are a general-purpose computing structures, disclosed at a high level of generality. The additional elements in claims 5 and 15 are the OTT application and social media platform, which are disclosed as instructions, i.e. software, disclosed at a high level of generality. The computing structure and software are merely tools used to implement the abstract ideas, i.e. the claims add the words “apply it” to the abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional elements that are merely characterizations of data, i.e. non-functional descriptive information limitations that do are not abstract ideas, do not carry patentable weight, and cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: This analysis for Step 2B is commensurate with the analysis above for step 2A, Prong 2. Therefore, for the same reasons disclosed above, the additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, when taken individually and in combination, also do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the identified abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05). The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 7 and 17: Step 2A Prong 1: These claims recite determining a data preference between preferences, in response to data preference, causing a display of first preference visual data more prominently than a second preference visual data, that are abstract ideas in the category of mental processes and category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" because these are automations of functions that were once performed by humans, in the sub-categories of both commercial interactions due to marketing and advertisement, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, like posting and interacting through of social media (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional computing elements recited in claim 17 are the system and control circuitry. The specification discloses in ¶ [0100] that these are general purpose computing structures, disclosed at a high level of generality. There are no additional elements in claim 7. The computing structure is merely a tool used to implement the abstract idea of claim 17, i.e. the claim adds the words “apply it” the abstract ideas.
The claims recite additional elements that are merely characterizations of data, i.e. non-functional descriptive information limitations that do are not abstract ideas, do not carry patentable weight, and cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims recite the following limitations: causing to display, which is merely displaying data. The specification does not reveal advances to or displaying data.
No additional elements exist in claim 7, therefore there are no elements that could integrate the claim into a practical application. An additional element beyond the abstract idea is also required to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For claim 17, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 8: This claim does not recite any abstract ideas, as it merely adds further boundary conditions to the posting function, such that the group of visual data posted is displayed in order with the second data behind the first. There are no additional elements in claim 8. Since there are no abstract ideas, the claim cannot be integrated into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Regarding claims 9 and 18: Step 2A Prong 1: These claims recite associating an ID with the visual data post and tracking engagement of post via ID and userID, that are abstract ideas in the category of mental processes and category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" because these are automations of functions that were once performed by humans, in the sub-categories of both commercial interactions due to marketing and advertisement, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, like posting and interacting through of social media (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional computing elements recited in claim 19 are a system and control circuitry. The specification discloses in ¶ [0100] that these are general purpose computing structures, disclosed at a high level of generality. The additional elements in claims 1 and 12 are the OTT application, OTT account, social media platform, social media account, and a social media feed, where the accounts and feed are utilized as databases, and the applications are disclosed as instructions, i.e. software. Both the databases and the software are disclosed at a high level of generality. The computing structures, databases, and software are merely tools used to implement the abstract ideas, i.e. claims add the words “apply it” to the abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional elements that are merely characterizations of data, i.e. non-functional descriptive information limitations that do are not abstract ideas, do not carry patentable weight, and cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: This analysis for Step 2B is commensurate with the analysis above for step 2A, Prong 2. Therefore, for the same reasons disclosed above, the additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, when taken individually and in combination, also do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the identified abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05). The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 10 and 19: Step 2A Prong 1: This claim recites receiving metrics data about the post, determining if metrics exceed threshold, that are abstract ideas in the category of mental processes and category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" because these are automations of functions that were once performed by humans, in the sub-categories of both commercial interactions due to marketing and advertisement, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, like posting and interacting through of social media (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional computing elements recited in claim 19 are a system and control circuitry. The specification discloses in ¶ [0100] that these are general purpose computing structures, disclosed at a high level of generality. The additional element in claims 10 and 19 is the social media platform, where the application is disclosed as instructions, i.e. software, disclosed at a high level of generality. The computing structures and software are merely tools used to implement the abstract ideas, i.e. claims add the words “apply it” to the abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional elements that are merely characterizations of data, i.e. non-functional descriptive information limitations that do are not abstract ideas, do not carry patentable weight, and cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites the following limitations: receiving metrics data, which is merely receiving data. The specification does not reveal advances to or receiving data.
The claims 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: This analysis for Step 2B is commensurate with the analysis above for step 2A, Prong 2. Therefore, for the same reasons disclosed above, the additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, when taken individually and in combination, also do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the identified abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05). The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 21-22: Step 2A Prong 1: These claims recite establishing mapping linking the OTT and social media accounts together such that communication is authorized. This is an abstract ideas in the category of mental processes and category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" because these are automations of functions that were historically performed by humans, in the sub-categories of both commercial interactions due to marketing and advertisement, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, like posting and interacting through of social media (MPEP 2106.04(a)). The process is akin to a human mental process because a human must historically log into both accounts and physically authorize the accounts to be linked and to allow communication between the disparate servers.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional computing elements recited in claim 21 are the media guidance server, the processing logic, i.e. software, the OTT account, i.e. software, the user’s social media account, i.e. software, and the network. The additional computing elements recited in claim 22 are the control circuitry, the processing logic, i.e. software, the OTT account, i.e. software, the user’s social media account, i.e. software, and the network. These are general purpose computing structures, disclosed at a high level of generality, and the applications are disclosed as instructions, i.e. software. Both the general-purpose computing structures and the general-purpose software instructions are recited at a high level of generality. The computing structures and software instructions are merely tools used to implement the abstract ideas, i.e. claims add the words “apply it” to the abstract ideas.
The claim recites additional elements that are merely characterizations of data, i.e. non-functional descriptive information limitations that do are not abstract ideas, do not carry patentable weight, and cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: This analysis for Step 2B is commensurate with the analysis above for step 2A, Prong 2. Therefore, for the same reasons disclosed above, the additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, when taken individually and in combination, also do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the identified abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05). The claims are directed to an abstract idea without 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9, -12, 15, 18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over McGuire, US20250310591A1, in view of LuVogt, US20130290110A1.
Regarding Claim 1 and 12: McGuire discloses:
For claim 1: A method comprising: [0001]
Claim 12: A system comprising: communications circuitry configured to access an OTT application, and control circuitry configured to: [0052] “a system comprising processing circuitry configured to,” [0084] (communications circuitry that communicates between the recommendation system server and the content sources, i.e. the OTT), [0224] (control circuitry performs application functions);
For claims 1 and 12: analyzing, (by a media guidance server (1)/[blank] (12)), a first user's consumption history associated with consumption of media assets using a first over-the-top (OTT) account associated with the first user and an OTT application; [0019, 0071, and 0096] (develop a media consumption profile for a user from at least consumption history with media providers; a media provider is a subscription service from [0002] “television channels, radio stations, video-on-demand and other streaming services, social media and other internet content sources provide a vast array of content available to a user,” (synonymous with a user’s OTT accounts in an OTT application, synonymous with the media guidance server), [0111] (user accounts and profiles within an account household with a subscription service, i.e. OTT), [0084] (TV servicer network performs application functions), [0224] (control circuitry performs application functions);
determining, (by a media guidance server (1)]/[by the control circuitry] (12)), based on the analysis, a first genre preference by the first user; [0040-0042] (metadata used for user preference calculation includes genre), [0096] (analyzer determines preferences, viewing activities and habits, based on the analysis, for a plurality of users), [0163] (genres and sub-genres, included as user preferences as disclosed in [0118] are determined and saved for user preferences based on analysis of consumption and consumption history), [0178] (two distinct genres for two distinct scenes from the same media asset), [0084] (TV servicer network performs application functions), [0224] (control circuitry performs application functions);
selecting, (by a recommendation engine associated with a media guidance server (1)]/by the control circuitry based on a recommendation from an associated recommendation engine] (12)), from a particular media asset, a first image or scene comprising a personalized content version of the particular media asset related to the first genre preference; [0084] (TV servicer network performs application functions), [0224] (control circuitry performs application functions), [0052] (obtain a plurality of properties associates with a content item and select one or more of a plurality of visual indications, i.e. at least a scene or image, from a content item, i.e. a media asset), [0178] (two distinct genres for two distinct visual indications, i.e. at least an image or scene, from the same content item, e.g. media asset), [0182] (selecting the particular image from a plurality of images from a particular media asset best suited or matched based on preferences of users, i.e. genre preference; comparing the plurality of images), [0070-0071] (recommendation engine performs user recommendations based on user data), [0092] (generate personalized recommendations);
transmitting by the media guidance server, data identifying the first user's OTT account over a network connection, data and the first image or scene of the particular media asset to post the first image or scene in a social media feed associated with the first user's social media account on the social media platform. [Figure 4, 414] (display the selected images), [Figure 4, 416] (display the default image), [0178] (two distinct images/scenes from the same media asset), [0105] (a user posts content related to content to their social media),
Where McGuire does not disclose, LuVogt teaches:
Automatically transmitting by the media guidance server over a network connection to a social media platform, data identifying the first user's OTT account and the selected first image or scene of the particular media asset to trigger the social media platform to automatically post the first image or scene in a social media feed associated with the first user's social media account on the social media platform. [Figure 6] and [0116] (causing to send the items of content to the users’ or other users’ processing element (PE)), [0076] (content items are posted to a users’ feed and the feeds of users linked to that user via profile feeds on each user’s social media accounts in a social media platform).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art of McGuire and LuVogt before the effective filing date, to arrive at a disclosure that is obvious over the instant invention. The prior art of McGuire is comprised of the primary limitations of the claim, i.e. a based disclosure, however, LuVogt is comprised of elements specific to managing/sending/receiving/tracking content at a plurality of user’s social media profiles/accounts in social media platforms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to improve upon the base device of McGuire with the disclosure of LuVogt, which are known in the art. The prior art contains a known technique that is applicable to the base disclosure, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding Claims 4 and 15: McGuire discloses and LuVogt teaches:
For Claim 4: The method of claim 1 comprising: [0001]
For Claim 15: The system of claim 12, further comprising control circuitry configured to: [0052] “a system comprising processing circuitry configured to;”
McGuire discloses: For claims 4 and 15: wherein the selection of the first image or scene of the particular media asset; [0096] (system receives user input, i.e. interaction with media asset, and aggregates interaction data to determine recommendations), [0163] (user based interactions with the content represents a preference or interest for that content property or parameter, i.e. selection of an image or scene), [0168] (selection one or more customized visual representations, i.e. images/scenes, for a user is performed utilizing the user based preferences).
the OTT Application; [0002] “television channels, radio stations, video-on-demand and other streaming services, social media and other internet content sources provide a vast array of content available to a user,” synonymous with users OTT accounts in an OTT application), [0111] (user accounts and profiles within an account household with a subscription service, i.e. OTT accounts and profiles in an OTT application);
Where McGuire does not disclose, LuVogt teaches:
is performed in response to the first user interacting with a post related to the particular media asset on the social media platform, wherein the post related to the particular media asset is posted by the a. [Figure 6] and [0116] (causing to send the items of content to the users’ or other users’ processing element (PE)), [0076] (content items are posted to a users’ feed and the feeds of users linked to that user via profile feeds on each user’s social media accounts in a social media platform), [0077] (user interactions with posts are considered for ranking and recommendation, where recommendations occur in response to user interactions), [0051] (media related to a specific topic, i.e. a post related to a particular media asset).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art of McGuire and LuVogt before the effective filing date, to arrive at a disclosure that is obvious over the instant invention. The prior art of McGuire is comprised of the primary limitations of the claim, i.e. a based disclosure, however, LuVogt is comprised of elements specific to managing/sending/receiving/tracking content at a plurality of user’s social media profiles/accounts in social media platforms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to improve upon the base device of McGuire with the disclosure of LuVogt, which are known in the art. The prior art contains a known technique that is applicable to the base disclosure, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding Claim 5: McGuire discloses and LuVogt teaches:
The method of claim 1 comprising: [0001]
McGuire discloses: wherein the selected first image or scene of the particular media asset is a scene or image personalized to the first user based on the first genre preference. [0168] (selection of one or more customized visual representations, i.e. images/scenes, for a user is performed utilizing the user based preferences), [0040-0042] (user engagement score includes genre), [0178] (images indicative of a genre).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18: McGuire discloses and LuVogt teaches:
For Claim 9: The method of claim 6 comprising: [0001]
For Claim 18: The system of claim 12, further comprising control circuitry configured to: [0052] “a system comprising processing circuitry configured to”;
McGuire discloses: For claims 9 and 18: and tracking engagement with the first image or scene by the first user based on the post identifier (ID) and a user ID associated with the first user. [0102] (user identifier), [0007] (a visual indicator receives an identifier or descriptor for the elements), [0209] (tracking user engagement metrics with a plurality of visual indicators, i.e. images or scenes, where the disclosure specifies user engagement, synonymous with tracking by the user, as well as tracking by the visual indicator)
Where McGuire does not disclose, LuVogt teaches: associating a post identifier (ID) with the post of the first image or scene. [0086] (each item is given a specific universal identifier).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art of McGuire and LuVogt before the effective filing date, to arrive at a disclosure that is obvious over the instant invention. The prior art of McGuire is comprised of the primary limitations of the claim, i.e. a based disclosure, however, LuVogt is comprised of elements specific to managing/sending/receiving/tracking content at a plurality of user’s social media profiles/accounts in social media platform. Therefore, it would have been obvious to improve upon the base device of McGuire with the disclosure of LuVogt, which are known in the art. The prior art contains a known technique that is applicable to the base disclosure, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding Claims 21 and 22: McGuire discloses and LuVogt teaches:
For claim 21: The method of claim 1, further comprising; and for claim 22: The system of claim 12, further comprising:
McGuire discloses:
For Claim 21: the media guidance server, Establishing by said server: (leading to combined limitations for both claims below) and
for Claim 22, the control circuitry, said circuitry configured to establish: (leading to combined limitations for both claims below):
continued from above for both Claims 21 and 22: via backend data processing configuration logic, mapping that links the first user's OTT account with the first user’s account to authorize the network communication between ((21) the media guidance server/(22) a media guidance server associated with the control circuitry) and the user’s media platform. [0220] (backend processing arrangement of the media server interfaces directly with a user device to log user interaction data, where the disclosure explicitly discloses user interaction data includes data from the user’s social media account in at least [0002] and [0105], however the disclosure does not disclose the establishing of the connection), [0082] (the logic or the guidance server are linked to sources of interaction data information concerning available content from the internet; it would be reasonable for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that social media executes via at least a URL through the internet or via an application on a device, thereby implicitly disclosing cross-platform linking), [0084] (communication between the media server, each of the user devices, and with the content sources, which may include both the OTT and/or social media), [0105] (the guidance server logs the user actions of posting content or related content data to their private social media account), [0007] “comprise an identifier or descriptor for a visual event and/or one or more people, objects or scenes of the visual indication.”
Where McGuire does disclose the limitations above, Mcguire does not disclose establishing, but LuVogt teaches: establishing, a secure cross-platform mapping that dynamically links the first user's OTT account with the first user's social media account to authorize the network communication between the server and the social media platform. And first user's social media account. [0004] (relevant items are forwarded by forwarding logic), [0100] (the social media account is linked to the server by a user, i.e. establishing a secure cross-platform link, such that the servicer server is permitted to automatically connect and dynamically stay connected to the user’s social media account on the social media platform to use user data to build the model that informs on the recommendation engine’s decisions, thereby continuing the secure, user authorized, communication linkage between), [0115] (forwarding metadata attached to and including the content item to the user’s accounts, which comprises at least identifying metadata and an identifying global unique identifier, from [0086], that applies to every element or item including user ID and selected content, triggering an event associated with the received content item), [0076] (content items are posted to a users’ feed and the feeds of users linked to that user via profile feeds on each user’s social media accounts in a social media platform).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art of McGuire and LuVogt before the effective filing date, to arrive at a disclosure that is obvious over the instant invention. The prior art of McGuire is comprised of the primary limitations of the claim, i.e. a based disclosure, however, LuVogt is comprised of elements specific to managing/sending/receiving/tracking content at a plurality of user’s social media profiles/accounts in social media patforms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to improve upon the base device of McGuire with the disclosure of LuVogt, which are known in the art. The prior art contains a known technique that is applicable to the base disclosure, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Claims 2-3, 6-8, 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGuire, US20250310591A1, in view of LuVogt, US20130290110A1 in view of Claim 1 under MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B): Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale due to a Duplication of Parts, such that claim 1 is duplicated in claims 2-3, 6-8, 13, and 16-17, where it can be assumed that what occurs for one user may be applied in duplication to a plurality of users.
Regarding Claims 2 and 13: McGuire discloses and LuVogt teaches:
For Claim 2: The method of claim 1 comprising: [0001]
For Claim 13: The system of claim 12, further comprising control circuitry configured to: [0052] “a system comprising processing circuitry configured to;”
McGuire discloses: Claims 2 and 13: analyzing a user's consumption history associated with consumption of media assets using a second OTT account associated with the second user and the OTT application; [0019, 0071, and 0096] (develop a media consumption profile for a plurality of users from at least consumption history with media providers; a media provider is a subscription service from [0002] “television channels, radio stations, video-on-demand and other streaming services, social media and other internet content sources provide a vast array of content available to a user,” synonymous with users OTT accounts in an OTT application), [0111] (user accounts and profiles within an account household with a subscription service, i.e. OTT accounts and profiles in an OTT application);
determining, by ((2) a media guidance server/ (13) the media guidance server associated with the control circuitry) based on the analysis of a user’s consumption history, a second genre preference by the user, wherein the second genre preference is distinct from the first genre preference; [0096] (analyzer determines preferences, viewing activities and habits, based on the analysis, for a plurality of users), [0163] (genres and sub-genres, included as user preferences as disclosed in [0118] are determined and saved for user preferences based on analysis of consumption and consumption history), [0178] (two distinct genres for two distinct scenes from the same media asset), [0084] (TV servicer network performs application functions), [0224] (control circuitry performs application functions);
selecting, by ((2) the recommendation engine/ (13) by the control circuitry based on a recommendation engine), from the particular media asset, a second image or scene related to the second genre preference, wherein the second image or scene is distinct from the first image or scene; [0052] (obtain a plurality of properties associates with a content item and select one or more of a plurality of visual indications, i.e. at least scenes or images, from a content item, i.e. a media asset), [0182] (selecting the particular image from a plurality of images from a particular media asset best suited or matched based on preferences of users, i.e. genre preference; comparing the plurality of images), [0178] (two distinct images/scenes from the same media asset, where the images may be indicative of a genre, i.e. at least images or scenes, from the same content item, e.g. media asset), [0224] (control circuitry performs application functions), [0069] (content recommendation engine used to perform the recommendation functions);
transmitting, ((2) by the media guidance server/ (13) by the control circuitry)) over a network connection to the social media platform, data identifying the users’ s OTT account and the second image or scene; [Figure 4, 414] (display the selected images), [Figure 4, 416] (display the default image), [0178] (two distinct images/scenes from the same media asset, where the image may be indicative of a genre), [0084] (TV servicer network performs application functions), [0007] “comprise an identifier or descriptor for a visual event and/or one or more people, objects or scenes of the visual indication.”, [0224] (control circuitry performs application functions);
Where McGuire does not disclose, LuVogt teaches:
based on the analysis of a second user’s consumption history:
automatically transmitting, by the server over a network to a social media platform, data identifying the second user’s OTT account and the image or scene in a social media feed associated with the second user’s social media account associated on the social media platform. [0014] (a second user), [Figure 6] and [0116] (causing to send the items of content, i.e. any of a plurality image or scene to be transmitted according to the relevance pass, i.e. based on a recommendation which could apply to any of a first, second, or subsequent visual depictions, to the users’ or other users’, i.e. second user’s, processing element (PE)), [0076] (content items are posted to a users’ feed and the feeds of users linked to that user via profile feeds on each user’s social media accounts in a social media application), [0115] (forwarding metadata attached to and including the content item to the user’s accounts, which comprises at least identifying metadata and an identifying global unique identifier, from [0086], that applies to every element or item including user ID and selected content, triggering an event associated with the received content item);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art of McGuire and LuVogt before the effective filing date, to arrive at a disclosure that is obvious over the instant invention. The prior art of McGuire is comprised of the primary limitations of the claim, i.e. a based disclosure, however, LuVogt is comprised of elements specific to managing/sending/receiving/tracking content at a plurality of user’s social media profiles/accounts in social media platform. Therefore, it would have been obvious to improve upon the base device of McGuire with the disclosure of LuVogt, which are known in the art. The prior art contains a known technique that is applicable to the base disclosure, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding Claims 3 and 14: McGuire discloses and LuVogt and teaches:
For Claim 3: The method of claim 2 comprising: [0100]
For Claim 14: The system of claim 13, further comprising control circuitry configured to: [0052] “a system comprising processing circuitry configured to;”
McGuire discloses: For claims 3 and 14: wherein the first image or scene and the second image or scene are distinct scenes from the same particular media asset. [0178] (two distinct genres for two distinct scenes from the same media asset).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16: McGuire discloses and LuVogt teaches:
For claim 6: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
For claim 16: The system of claim 12, further comprising, the control circuitry configured to: [0052] “a system comprising processing circuitry configured to,”
McGuire discloses: For claims 6 and 16: determining a second genre preference by the first user based on analyzing the first user's consumption of the media assets using the first OTT account associated with the first user and an OTT application; [0019, 0071, and 0096] (develop a media consumption profile for a user from at least consumption history with media providers; a media provider is a subscription service from [0002] “television channels, radio stations, video-on-demand and other streaming services, social media and other internet content sources provide a vast array of content available to a user,” synonymous with a user’s OTT accounts in an OTT application), [0178] (two distinct genres for two distinct scenes from the same media asset, i.e. a first and second genre), [0111] (user accounts and profiles within an account household with a subscription service, i.e. OTT)
Selecting, by the recommendation engine from the particular media asset, a second image or scene related to the second genre preference; [0182] (selecting the particular image from a plurality of images from a particular media asset best suited or matched based on preferences of users, i.e. genre preference; comparing the plurality of images), [0140] (genres and sub-genres are determined and saved for content items, i.e. media assets), [0178] (two distinct genres for two distinct scenes from the same media asset, i.e. a second image/scene with a distinct genre), [0069] (content recommendation engine used to perform the recommendation functions);
a stack of images or scenes from the particular media asset, wherein the posted stack of images or scenes include both the first image or scene and the second image or scene. [0004] (selecting a plurality of visual indications, i.e. images or scenes, associated with a content item, where one or more images or scenes are displayed), [0094] (presents each group of content corresponding to a different carousel in a carousel type user interface, e.g. a stack of images or scenes for each asset, content carousel groups of items may represent one or more images with similar themes/categories, i.e. from the same asset, customized to that individual user), [0198-0199] (a plurality of visual indications, e.g. scenes/images, from each content item, i.e. asset, may be displayed as an ordered list, mapped to themes/categories/genres).
Where McGuire does not disclose, LuVogt teaches: causing to post [an item of content, i.e. image or scene] in the first user's feed associated with the first user's social media account. [Figure 6] and [0116] (causing to send the items of content to the users’ or other users’ processing element (PE)), [0076] (content items are posted to a users’ feed and the feeds of users linked to that user via profile feeds on each user’s social media accounts in a social media platform);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art of McGuire and LuVogt before the effective filing date, to arrive at a disclosure that is obvious over the instant invention. The prior art of McGuire is comprised of the primary limitations of the claim, i.e. a based disclosure, however, LuVogt is comprised of elements specific to managing/sending/receiving/tracking content at a plurality of user’s social media profiles/accounts in social media platforms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to improve upon the base device of McGuire with the disclosure of LuVogt, which are known in the art. The prior art contains a known technique that is applicable to the base disclosure, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17: McGuire discloses and LuVogt teaches:
For claim 7: The method of claim 6, further comprising:
For claim 17: The system of claim 12, further comprising, the control circuitry configured to: [0052] “a system comprising processing circuitry configured to,” further comprising:
McGuire discloses: For claims 7 and 17: determining, based on analysis of the first user's consumption history that the first user prefers the first genre preference over the second genre preference; [0071] (content more likely and less likely to be of interest, i.e. user prefers content they are more likely to be interested in over content they are less likely to be interested in, where content has stored data including genres based on user consumption history);
and in response to determining that the first user prefers the first genre preference over the second genre preference, causing to display the first image or scene associated with the first genre preference more prominently than the second image or scene associated with the second genre preference. [0094-0095] (user preferences, i.e. more and less likely to have an interest in a genre, are displayed, such that the system determines a customized ordering of at least some or all of the groups of content or content recommendations like image/scene choices, for each user), [0189] (display of one image more prominently is based on a metric of success of the image/scene, i.e. a user’s preferred genre, where the system may allocate at least 2 different scenes/images with at least 2 genres as disclosed above).
Regarding Claim 8: McGuire discloses and LuVogt teaches: The method of claim 8 comprising: [0001]
McGuire discloses: wherein the post of stack of images or scenes further comprises displaying the second image or scene behind the first image or scene in the stack of images or scenes from the particular media asset. [0071] (content more likely and less likely to be of interest, i.e. user prefers content they are more likely to be interested in over content they are less likely to be interested in, where content has stored data including genres based on user consumption history); [0094-0095] (user preferences, i.e. more and less likely to have an interest in a genre, are displayed, such that the system determines a customized ordering of at least some or all of the groups of content or content recommendations like image/scene choices, for each user), [0189] (display of one image less prominently in a carousel, i.e. a stack, is based on a metric of success of the image/scene, i.e. a user’s less preferred genre, where the system may allocate at least 2 different scenes/images with at least 2 genres as disclosed above).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over McGuire, US20250310591A1, in view of LuVogt, US20130290110A1, in further view of Pearlman, US20180091865A1.
Regarding Claims 10 and 19: McGuire discloses:
For Claim 10: The method of claim 9 comprising: [0001]
For Claim 19: The system of claim 18, further comprising control circuitry configured to: [0052] “a system comprising processing circuitry configured to;”
For claims 10 and 19:
wherein tracking engagement with a first image or scene comprises: engagement metrics associated with engagement with the post of the first image or scene by the first user; [0030] (engagement metrics are tracked via an engagement score of the content item and/or visual indication), [0037] (user engagement with a particular posted content item is based on the engagement score), [0038] “tracking user engagement for a content item dependent on the visual indication presented to the user and storing a score for each visual indication representing said user engagement, wherein the selection of the image is based on said user engagement score,”
Where McGuire does not disclose, LuVogt teaches:
posted on the social media platform [0082] (listen for user actions), [0104] (metrics for social media posted items, i.e. images or scenes, are collected);
first and second users; [0014].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art of McGuire and LuVogt before the effective filing date, to arrive at a disclosure that is obvious over the instant invention. The prior art of McGuire is comprised of the primary limitations of the claim, i.e. a based disclosure, however, LuVogt is comprised of elements specific to managing/sending/receiving/tracking content at a plurality of user’s social media profiles/accounts in social media platforms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to improve upon the base device of McGuire with the disclosure of LuVogt, which are known in the art. The prior art contains a known technique that is applicable to the base disclosure, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Where McGuire does not disclose and LuVogt does not teach, Pearlman teaches:
the engagement metrics associated with engagement with the post on a social media platform by the user; [0030] (the number of times a user has accesses the social media recommendation of the social media asset, the frequency, i.e. engagement),
determining, based on the received engagement metrics whether the engagement with the post of the first user exceeds a threshold score: [0045] (user access frequency, i.e. engagement, exceeds a threshold score).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the improvements of the prior art of Pearlman to the base invention of the combined disclosures of McGuire and LuVogt, using a known technique, where the limitations are partially disclosed in McGuire and LuVogt. Pearlman offers a known technique that is applicable to the base disclosures. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
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
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights