DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-18 are rejected.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 1-2 of the claim, “wherein in the selecting of the ranking-boosting content selects, among the specified contents, a content” is not grammatically correct. Line 5 contains an extra comma. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "even if whether the popularity ranking of the content has not been boosted" is unclear and does not seem to make sense in the context of the claim. It is unclear what is intended by this phrase, rendering the claim indefinite. Furthermore, it is unclear what content is selected that would be “a content whose present popularity ranking has been boosted by a range or more compared to the first past occasion” but also “has not been boosted compared to an immediate past occasion among the third past occasion, the second past occasion, the first past occasion, and the specific occasion.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 17, and 18, as well as their dependent claims, are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
With respect to claims 1, 17, and 18:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method of providing contents comprising:
specifying contents to be serialized on a specific day of a week, among a plurality of contents each serialized with reference to a day of the week;
calculating a popularity ranking for each of the specified contents;
selecting, using the popularity ranking, a ranking-boosting content satisfying a ranking condition among the specified contents; and
providing, on a user terminal, items corresponding to each of the specified contents,
wherein the providing includes displaying ranking-boosting information related to ranking-boosting on an item corresponding to the ranking-boosting content, among the items corresponding to each of the specified contents.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, the “specifying...”, “calculating…”, and “selecting…” steps in the context of this claim encompass a person evaluating content and determining popularity of the content. These constitute observations, evaluations, and judgements that are able to be performed by the human mind, perhaps aided by the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations,” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method of providing contents comprising:
specifying contents to be serialized on a specific day of a week, among a plurality of contents each serialized with reference to a day of the week;
calculating a popularity ranking for each of the specified contents;
selecting, using the popularity ranking, a ranking-boosting content satisfying a ranking condition among the specified contents; and
providing, on a user terminal, items corresponding to each of the specified contents,
wherein the providing includes displaying ranking-boosting information related to ranking-boosting on an item corresponding to the ranking-boosting content, among the items corresponding to each of the specified contents.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Use of a “a user terminal” amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding the additional limitations of “providing...” and “displaying…” the examiner submits that these limitations constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Looking at the claim as a whole and considering any additional element/limitations individually and in combination, no additional particular machine, transformation, improvement to the functioning of a computer or an existing technological process or technical field, or meaningful application of the idea, beyond generally linking the idea to a technological environment (e.g. implementation via computers’, Alice) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity, is recited in or encompassed by the claims.
Accordingly, the additional limitations, considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “providing...” and “displaying…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities is supported under Berkheimer.
Hence, the claim is ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to claims 2-16:
Dependent claims 2-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-11 recite additional limitations that are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception, i.e. a mental process (e.g. determinations).
Claims 12-16 recite additional limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution activity under Step 2A, prong 2, and well-understood, routine, conventional activities under step 2B (e.g. displaying data).
Therefore, dependent claims 2-16 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai et al. (US 2015/0074552, hereinafter “Chai”) in view of Igusa et al. (US 2022/0113849, hereinafter “Igusa”).
In regards to claim 1, Chai teaches a method of providing contents comprising:
calculating a popularity ranking for each of specified contents (Chai; par [0044]);
selecting, using the popularity ranking, a ranking-boosting content satisfying a ranking condition among the specified contents (Chai; pars [0046]-[0047]); and
providing, on a user terminal, items corresponding to each of the specified contents (Chai; par [0068], Fig. 3),
wherein the providing includes displaying ranking-boosting information related to ranking-boosting on an item corresponding to the ranking-boosting content, among the items corresponding to each of the specified contents (Chai; pars [0070]-[0071], Fig. 3).
Chai does not explicitly teach specifying contents to be serialized on a specific day of a week, among a plurality of contents each serialized with reference to a day of the week.
Igusa teaches a method of providing contents comprising specifying contents to be serialized on a specific day of a week, among a plurality of contents each serialized with reference to a day of the week (Igusa; par [0075], Fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Chai using contents that are serialized on a specific day of the week in order to rank serialized contents based on popularity (Igusa; par [0075], Fig. 3B).
In regards to claim 2, Chai and Igusa teach the method of claim 1, wherein the ranking condition is related to whether the popularity ranking of each of the specified contents on a plurality of different occasions has been boosted (Chai; pars [0046]-[0047], [0071]-[0072]).
In regards to claim 3, Chai and Igusa teach the method of claim 2, wherein the ranking condition is related to whether the popularity ranking of each of the specified contents has been boosted by a range or more at a specific occasion compared to a past occasion, the past occasion being at least one unit period of time prior to the specific occasion (Chai; pars [0048], [0071]-[0072]).
In regards to claim 4, Chai and Igusa teach the method of claim 3, wherein the selecting of the ranking-boosting content selects a specific content as the ranking-boosting when the popularity ranking of the specific content from among the specified contents has been boosted by the range at the specific occasion compared to the past occasion (Chai; pars [0048], [0071]-[0072]).
In regards to claim 5, Chai and Igusa teach the method of claim 4, wherein the popularity ranking at the specific occasion and the past occasion of each of the specified contents corresponds to the popularity ranking at the specific day of the week on which each of the specified contents is serialized, the specific occasion corresponds to a present occasion on which the specified contents are serialized, the unit period of time corresponds to one week, and the past occasion includes a first past occasion corresponding to one week prior to the specific occasion (Igusa; par [0075], Fig. 3B – contents serialized by day of the week; pars [0065], [0082] – weekly updates).
In regards to claim 6, Chai and Igusa teach the method of claim 5, wherein the ranking-boosting content is a content, from among the specified contents, whose present popularity ranking on the specific day of the week has been boosted by the range or more compared to last week (Chai; pars [0071]-[0072]; Igusa; pars [0065], [0082] – since Chai teaches determining popularity rate of change and Igusa teaches weekly updates, obvious that the rate of change would be determined week over week).
In regards to claim 7, Chai and Igusa teach the method of claim 3, wherein in the selecting of the ranking-boosting content selects, among the specified contents, a content whose present popularity ranking on the specific day of the week has been boosted by the range or more compared to last week or a content whose popularity ranking has been boosted continuously over a plurality of past occasions, , as the ranking-boosting content (Chai; pars [0071]-[0072]; Igusa; pars [0065], [0082] – since Chai teaches determining popularity rate of change and Igusa teaches weekly updates, obvious that the rate of change would be determined week over week).
In regards to claim 8, Chai and Igusa teach the method of claim 2, wherein the selecting of the ranking-boosting content selects, among the specified contents, a content whose ranking has continuously been boosted over a plurality of past occasions, as the ranking-boosting content (Chai; pars [0046]-[0048], [0071]-[0072]; Igusa; pars [0065], [0082]).
In regards to claim 9, Chai and Igusa teach the method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of past occasions includes a first past occasion being prior to a specific occasion by a unit period of time, a second past occasion being prior to the first past occasion by the unit period of time, and a third past occasion being prior to the second past occasion by the unit period of time, and the ranking-boosting content is a content whose popularity ranking has continuously been boosted over the third past occasion, the second past occasion, the first past occasion, and the specific occasion (Chai; pars [0046]-[0048], [0071]-[0072]; Igusa; pars [0065], [0082]).
In regards to claim 10, Chai and Igusa teach the method of claim 9, wherein the selecting of the ranking-boosting content comprises excluding, among the specified contents, a content whose popularity ranking has not been boosted compared to an immediate previous occasion among the third past occasion, the second past occasion, the first past occasion, and the specific occasion, from the ranking-boosting content (Chai; pars [0046]-[0048], [0071]-[0072]; Igusa; pars [0065], [0082] – obvious that contents that are “cooling” are not boosted).
In regards to claim 11, Chai and Igusa teach the method of claim 10, wherein the selecting of the ranking-boosting content selects, among the specified contents, a content whose present popularity ranking has been boosted by a range or more compared to the first past occasion as the ranking-boosting content, even if whether the popularity ranking of the content has not been boosted compared to an immediate past occasion among the third past occasion, the second past occasion, the first past occasion, and the specific occasion (Chai; pars [0046]-[0048], [0070]-[0072] – may not take into account hot or cooling statuses).
In regards to claim 12, Chai and Igusa teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a plurality of service pages each matched to a different day of the week, wherein the providing of the items provides the items corresponding to each of the specified contents on a corresponding service page matched to the specific day of the week among the plurality of service pages (Igusa; par [0075], Fig. 3B).
In regards to claim 13, Chai and Igusa teach the method of claim 12, further comprising: sequentially disposing the items corresponding to each of the specified contents on the specific service page according to the popularity ranking for each of the specified contents that is calculated based on one of a plurality of sorting references (Chai; pars [0068], [0070]-[0071], Fig. 3 – sorting items by popularity ranking; Igusa; par [0075], Fig. 3B).
In regards to claim 14, Chai and Igusa teach the method of claim 1, wherein the items corresponding to the ranking-boosting content includes a thumbnail image corresponding to the ranking-boosting content and a graphic object corresponding to the ranking-boosting information, and the graphic object overlaps on the thumbnail image (Chai; par [0070], Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 15, Chai and Igusa teach the method of claim 14, wherein the graphic object corresponding to the ranking-boosting information includes guidance information indicating a reason the ranking-boosting content has been selected as the ranking-boosting content (Chai; pars [0070]-[0071], [0073], Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 16, Chai and Igusa teach the method of claim 14, wherein, when the items corresponding to the ranking-boosting content is selected by the user terminal, the user terminal is provided with an episode page that includes an episode list of episodes constituting the ranking-boosting content (Chai; pars [0070], [0075], Fig. 3 – content selection; Igusa; pars [0079], [0114], Figs. 4A, 4B – list of episodes and recommended content/comic icons).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected using the same rationale provided for claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kavita Stanley whose telephone number is (571)272-8352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Cordelia (Dede) Zecher can be reached at 571-272-7771. 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.
/KAVITA STANLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights