DETAILED ACTION
Case Status
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments of 20 January 2026; Claims 1-14, 16 and 20-24 have been examined.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20090276709
Pars. 25, 46-54
Real time updates to tag cloud where user clicks on a tag cloud word results in adding a corresponding media item to a playlist
US 20220067087
Fig.’s 4, 11
Tag-based and suggested query words-based music recommendation search
US 20230283849
Par. 48
Metadata tag-based content search for playlist compilation
US 20210248198
Fig.’s 5-8
Content recommendation based on selection of tags in a tag list wherein tag list changes and updates to a new tag list
US 20160337425
Fig.’s 3A-3H
User selection of a mood tag determines next song to be played
CN107133308B
Abstract
User selection of words of a song determines new playlist of songs
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 1-14, 16 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-14, 16 and 20-24 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 1, 16 and 24, the detecting, operations, adding cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The displaying, obtaining, played, presents limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 6, 10, 14 the operation, determine, adding cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The display, sending, receiving are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23 the accumulate, determining, indicating, adding, updating cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 7, 9, 20 displaying, playing are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 16 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al., Pub. No.: US 20130138684 A1, hereinafter Kim.
As per claim 1, Kim discloses A content pushing method implemented at an electronic device, comprising:
in response to detecting a first operation by the electronic device, displaying a first content playing interface representing that content is being played, wherein the first content playing interface at least presents an identifier of the content and at least one playing control for the content (see at least par. 72 for output interface unit 503 which outputs a user interface (i.e. a first content playing interface) that displays, in response to what the current music being played is (i.e. in response to detecting a first operation by the electronic device), the title information (i.e. presents an identifier of the content). Par. 99 explains that music play information box (which is included inside the user interface of par. 72) presents information about music to be subsequently played. In other words, after the current music being played ends (i.e., presents … at least one playing control for the content), music to be subsequently played will become the current music being played (another disclosure of presents … at least one playing control for the content) and information about the sequence (another disclosure of presents … at least one playing control for the content) as well as information about the current music and subsequent music is presented);
displaying at least one first content recommendation tag on the first content playing interface (see rejection above; also, par. 75-76, the output user interface as seen in fig.’s 10-11, items 1001 and 1101 displays content recommendation words);
in response to detecting, by the electronic device, an operation on a target content recommendation tag in the at least one first content recommendation tag (see rejections above; par. 105 discloses “cursor movement or touch operation 1003” (i.e. an operation); see also, pars .88-89, 98-99), obtaining a target content corresponding to the target content recommendation tag (par. 106); and
adding the target content to a content playing queue to play the target content (see rejections above; also, fig.’s 10-11, lists 1004, 1107 receive (i.e. adding) the obtained content with the intended use of providing the content for play; and see pars. 72, 101, 107).
As per claim 2, Kim discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the first content playing interface is an interface of an application for playing the content (par. 72-75, output interface unit (i.e. a first content playing interface) is an interface for playing music), and the displaying at least one first content recommendation tag on the first content playing interface comprises: in response to a playing feature of the application meeting a preset condition, displaying the at least one first content recommendation tag on the first content playing interface (pars. 101-104 disclose that the words are presented in a manner that corresponds to music currently being played while listening to the music, presence of music in the application’s playlist, predetermined music, and/or distribution of the emotions of pieces of music held by the user, all of which are multiple alternative disclosures of the claimed a playing feature of the application meeting a preset condition).
As per claim 4, Kim discloses The method of claim 2, wherein the playing feature of the application comprises a type of a played content, and the method further comprises: in response to a target content type in which a user is interested being obtained according to the type of the played content, determining that the playing feature of the application meets the preset condition (see rejection of claim 2 including at least pars. 5, 7, 63-67, 104-107, fig’s 2, 8-11 for multiple examples of these limitations).
As per claim 5, Kim discloses The method of claim 4, wherein the content is music, the at least one first content recommendation tag comprises at least one of: a default tag, a familiar tag, a fresh tag, a music type tag, a single-song tag, or a singer tag (see rejection of claim 4 fig.’s 10-11 for multiple examples of tags; claim interpretation note: only one tag is required of the various labeled tags); and the familiar tag is used for indicating a first type of music, and the fresh tag is used for indicating a second type of music, a similarity between the first type and a target music type in which a user interest is greater than or equal to a preset similarity, and a similarity between the second type and the target music type is less than the preset similarity (see rejection above including at least pars. 62-65 wherein selection of particular tags results in indications of types of music (such as specific emotion / mood type music) that are presented in a similarity based rank or sorting).
As per claim 6, Kim discloses The method of claim 5, wherein the first content playing interface comprises an adjustment control (see fig. 11, item 1103-1105), and the method further comprises: in response to an operation on the adjustment control, displaying an adjustment progress bar (see at least fig. 11, item 1104); and in response to an operation on the adjustment progress bar, determining a proportion of music played in the first type of music, wherein if the target content recommendation tag is the familiar tag, the proportion represents a proportion of music played in the target music (see at least pars. 113-114).
As per claim 7, Kim discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the target content comprises at least one content, and the method further comprises: after obtaining the target content corresponding to the target content recommendation tag, playing the first content sorted among the at least one content (see par. 72, 101, 107; see fig.’s 10-11, lists 1004, 1107 receive the obtained content and provide the content for play).
As per claim 9, Kim discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: causing the at least one first content recommendation tag to disappear in response to a displaying duration of the at least one first content recommendation tag reaching a second preset time duration (pars. 104, 110-111).
As per claim 10, Kim discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to a second operation, displaying a second content playing interface (see fig. 10 as changing to fig. 11 in response to an operation on fig. 10); and displaying at least one second content recommendation tag on the second content playing interface, a part of the at least one first content recommendation tag being different from the at least one second content recommendation tag (see rejection above and note that fig. 11, items 1104 and 1105 have words (tags) not present in 1101).
As per claim 11, Kim discloses The method of claim 10, wherein the method further comprises: before displaying the at least one second content recommendation tag on the second content playing interface, updating the at least one first content recommendation tag to obtain the at least one second content recommendation tag (see rejection of claim 10 wherein emotion based updates (fig. 11, item 1103,1104 applies to/updates emotion expression words 1101 to display theme information phrase 1105).
As per claim 12, Kim discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the updating the at least one first content recommendation tag comprises: updating the at least one first content recommendation tag according to operation data of a user on the at least one first content recommendation tag; or updating the at least one first content recommendation tag according to operation data of the user on the target content; or updating the at least one first content recommendation tag according to content-related attribute information (see rejection of claim 11 and pars. 113-114).
As per claim 13, Kim discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the updating the at least one first content recommendation tag comprises: updating the at least one first content recommendation tag according to a type of each first content recommendation tag and updated durations corresponding to different types of content (fig. 11, item 1103,1104 applies to/updates emotion expression words 1101, each of a type, to display theme information phrase 1105 which corresponds to durations of recommended songs displayed in window 1106 and recommended list 1107).
As per claims 16 and 20-24, they are analogous to claims above and therefore likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of A. Mattsson, Patent No.: US 9659068 B1, hereinafter Mattsson.
As per claim 3, Kim discloses The method of claim 1, The method of claim 2. Kim does not expressly disclose however Mattsson in the related field of endeavor of content search and recommendation discloses wherein the playing feature of the application comprises an accumulated usage duration of the application, and the preset condition is that the accumulated usage duration reaches a first preset duration (Mattsson, col. 9, lines 44-67, col. 10, lines 25-54, col. 14, lines 49-57).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Mattsson would have allowed Kim to “provid[e] media recommendations based at least in part on implicit user behavior. By using data associated with user behavior that implicitly corresponds to media playback, which data and user behavior exclude explicit user inputs for a media item (e.g., user inputs for controlling playback or providing user feedback), content providers are able to provide media recommendations that are more likely to be relevant to a user” (Mattsson, col. 1, lines 33-41).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Eugene et al., Pub. No.: US 20030183064 A1, hereinafter Eugene.
As per claim 8, Kim discloses The method of claim 1. Kim does not expressly disclose however Eugene in the related field of endeavor of content recommendation discloses wherein the adding the target content to the content playing queue comprises: adding the target content at a position next to a currently playing content (Eugene, par. 20). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Eugene would have allowed Kim to “adds this song as the next successive song to an ordered playlist … By selecting each song based on musical characteristics of each preceding song, an acoustically pleasing sequence of songs are rendered by the rendering device 160.”
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hicken et al., Pub. No.: US 20050038819, hereinafter Hicken.
As per claim 14, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining target content corresponding to the target content recommendation tag comprises: sending the target content recommendation tag (pars. 29, 106 disclose searching a database) […]; and receiving information of the target content […], the information comprising an identifier of the target content […]; and the adding the target content to the content playing queue comprises: adding the identifier of the target content to the content playing queue (Kim fig.’s 10-11, lists 1004, 1107 receive (i.e. adding) the obtained content with the intended use of providing the content for play; and see pars. 72, 101, 107).
Kim does not expressly disclose sending a query word/tag to a server and receiving from the server information that comprises a download link, the download link being used for downloading the target content to play the target content. However, Hicken in the related field of endeavor of content recommendation discloses this in pars. 37, 134. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Hicken “provides a graphics user interface (hereinafter referred to as a mixer GUI) for allowing a user to view his or her music files in an organized manner according to different categories, such as, for example, according to genre, artist, or album. The mixer GUI further allows a user to play the music files, search for particular artists, albums, or songs, generate playlist mixes, modify generated playlist mixes, purchase, download, or listen to albums or songs from different providers, and the like” (Hicken, par. 37).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered.
Arguments directed to the 35 USC 101 rejection on page 8 of the remarks are not persuasive. Regarding feature (1), reciting that the method is implemented by a device merely invokes a generic computer as a tool and does not overcome the abstract nature of the claimed mental process. Regarding feature (2), note that claim 1 does not require a user at all, much less a user-performed operation; even if it did, detecting a user operation constitutes an observation that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper and therefore falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Regarding feature (3), detecting an operation on a content recommendation tag amounts to identifying and selecting information, which is a mental process performed at a high level of generality. Regarding the advantageous technical effects argument, the alleged advantages are merely result-oriented statements not tied to any specific technical implementation and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the prior art rejection, page 12 of the remarks presents the following in connection with Kim, fig. 11 and pars. 75-76:
PNG
media_image1.png
271
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Firstly, it should be noted that the remarks do not address the very first portion of Kim that is cited in the non-final office action: par. 72 which starts with the sentence, with emphasis added, “The output interface unit 503 may output a user interface including a music play information box having a title information item of music currently being played, a search information input box, and a recommended music list output box.” Thus, it should be abundantly clear that at least this sentence alone explicitly discloses outputting one user interface that has at least the three different boxes inside of it. Accordingly, the search information input box as disclosed in par. 72 is not a “separate or dedicated search interface” because it is a box that is displayed along with the music play information box having a title information item of music currently being played and the recommended music list output box. That fact that fig. 11 does not reflect exactly this embodiment / arrangement of the user interface does not negate what is disclosed in par. 72.
Even if par. 72 did not provide such an explicit disclosure, note that par. 117 makes it clear that “Although the preferred embodiments of the present invention have been disclosed for illustrative purposes, those skilled in the art will appreciate that various modifications, additions and substitutions are possible, without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention as disclosed in the accompanying claims. These modifications, additions and substitutions should not be understood as being separate from the technical spirit and prospect of the present invention.”
Secondly, Applicant’s argument that Kim’s search interface is irrelevant to the media content playback is not persuasive because the claimed tag and target content have nothing to do with the claimed content that is being played. Nonetheless, Kim discloses exactly this. For example, par. 100 says “…when the user desires to find pieces of music similar to music currently being played while listening to the music…”.
The remarks further present:
PNG
media_image2.png
112
637
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is not persuasive for reasons provided above: the claimed tag and target content have nothing to do with the claimed content that is being played. Nonetheless, Kim discloses exactly this. For example, par. 100 says “…when the user desires to find pieces of music similar to music currently being played while listening to the music…”.
Regarding the claim 1 amended limitation of “in response to detecting a first operation by the electronic device, displaying a first content playing interface representing that content is being played, wherein the first content playing interface at least presents an identifier of the content and at least one playing control for the content,” see at least par. 72 of Kim for output interface unit 503 which outputs a user interface (i.e. a first content playing interface) that displays, in response to what the current music being played is (i.e. in response to detecting a first operation by the electronic device), the title information (i.e. presents an identifier of the content). Par. 99 explains that music play information box (which is included inside the user interface of par. 72) presents information about music to be subsequently played. In other words, after the current music being played ends (i.e., presents … at least one playing control for the content), music to be subsequently played will become the current music being played (another disclosure of presents … at least one playing control for the content) and information about the sequence (another disclosure of presents … at least one playing control for the content), as well as information about the current music and subsequent music is presented.
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 SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154