DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed March 2, 2026. Claims 1-22 are cancelled. Claims 33-42 are currently amended. Claims 23-42 are pending in this application.
This application is a CON of 18/115,466 filed 02/28/2023, which is now PAT 12169514; 18/115,466 is a CON of 17/315,963 filed 05/10/2021, which is now PAT 11847151; 17/315,963 is a CON of 16/743,413 filed 01/15/2020, which is now PAT 11093538; 16/743,413 is a CON of 15/277,288 filed 09/27/2016, which is now PAT 10572520; 15/277,288 is a CON of 13/801,812 filed 03/13/2013, which is now PAT 9465833; and 13/801,812 has PRO 61/677,895 filed 07/31/2012.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 2, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 23-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 23 and 33 recite determining, based on how well the input matches information in an information domain space, an ambiguity level of the input; based on determining that the ambiguity level meets or exceeds a first threshold value and is below a second threshold value: determining a first disambiguated input based on the structural knowledge; and based on determining that the ambiguity level meets or exceeds the second threshold value: determining a second disambiguated input based on the additional input; and selecting a first subset of content items from the set of content items based on comparing the second disambiguated input with the metadata describing each respective content item of the set of content items using a weighted vector representation of each content item of the first subset of content items. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The human mind can mentally determine an ambiguity level, determine a first disambiguated input based on structural knowledge, and select content items.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “receiving, over a network connection, for a set of content items, metadata describing each respective content item of the set of content items; receiving, over the network connection, structural knowledge, the structural knowledge showing semantic links between content items of the set of content items; receiving an input from a user interface, the input intended to identify at least one content item; and requesting an additional input from the user interface” are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the limitation of requesting input from the user interface amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even further, with respect to claim 33, the limitation of one or more processors configured to perform recited steps is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The receiving and requesting recitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of a user interface and one or more processors to perform the requesting limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 24 and 34 recite ordering the first subset of content items based on the structural knowledge; constructing a natural language message stating that a first content item of the ordered first subset of content items matches the second disambiguated input and that the remaining content items of the ordered first subset of content items also match the second disambiguated input; and generating for display a notification comprising the natural language message. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. A human mind can mentally order content items, construct a natural language message, and generate a notification.
There are no additional elements in claim 24, and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In claim 34, the limitation of one or more processors configured to perform recited steps is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 25 and 35 recite determining that the ambiguity level does not meet or exceed the first threshold value; and in response to determining that the ambiguity level does not meet or exceed the first threshold value, selecting a second subset of content items from the set of content items based on comparing the input with the metadata describing each respective content item of the set of content items. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. A human mind can mentally select content items based on comparison.
There are no additional elements in claim 25, and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In claim 35, the limitation of one or more processors configured to perform recited steps is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 26 recites generating for display at least one of a disambiguating question and a notification that multiple options exist for the input. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. A human mind can mentally generate a question and notification.
There are no additional elements, and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 27 and 37 recite determining, based on the comparing, that no content items in the set of content items satisfy the second disambiguated input; and selecting a group of content items that satisfies a portion of the second disambiguated input. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. A human mind can mentally determine that no content items satisfy the second disambiguated input and select a group of content items.
There are no additional elements in claim 27, and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In claim 37, the limitation of one or more processors configured to perform recited steps is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 28 and 38 recite determine at least one of the first disambiguated input and the second disambiguated input based on at least one of the preference signature, the interaction history, the geographic location of the input, and the time of the input. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this steps is that it fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. A human mind can mentally determine disambiguated input based on signature, history, location or time.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “receive at least one of a preference signature, an interaction history, a geographic location of the input, and a time of the input” is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. In claim 38, the limitation of one or more processors configured to perform recited steps is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The receiving is recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. In claim 38, the limitation of one or more processors configured to perform recited steps is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 29 and 39 recite determine whether the preference signature is available; in response to determining that the preference signature is available, determine at least one of the first disambiguated input and the second disambiguated input based on the preference signature; and in response to determining that the preference signature is not available, determine at least one of the first disambiguated input and the second disambiguated input based on at least one of the structural knowledge, the interaction history, the location of the input, and the time of the input. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps is that these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. A human mind can mentally perform the determining steps.
There are no additional elements in claim 29, and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In claim 39, the limitation of one or more processors configured to perform recited steps is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 30 and 40 recite generate for display the first subset of content items, wherein the display of the first subset of content items comprises at least one of an identifier for each content item in the first subset and a domain to which each content item in the first subset corresponds. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. A human mind can mentally generate a subset of content items comprising identifiers and domains.
There are no additional elements in claim 30, and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In claim 40, the limitation of one or more processors configured to perform recited steps is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 31 and 41 recite ordering the identifiers of content items based on the user preferences. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. A human mind can mentally order identifiers.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “receive user preferences” is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. In claim 41, the limitation of one or more processors configured to perform recited steps is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The receiving is recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. In claim 41, the limitation of one or more processors configured to perform recited steps is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 32 and 42 recite wherein the first subset of content items comprises episodes of a series, and selecting a second episode of the series that follows a first episode of the series that a user most recently watched. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this step is that it falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. A human mind can mentally select a second episode.
There are no additional elements in claim 32, and thus the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In claim 42, the limitation of one or more processors configured to perform recited steps is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 36 recites the additional element of one or more processors to display at least one of a disambiguating question and a notification that multiple options exist for the input. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the displaying is mere output recited at a high level of generality, and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation also represents mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The displaying is recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network or presenting offers and is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Also, the recitation of a processor to display amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represents mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem in the field of providing context relevant content to users over a network, and in particular using distributed storage and analysis to provide relevant content to users in an efficient way. Applicant argues that the claims provide a technical improvement in the area of content storage, recommendation, and provision of content to users, by providing benefits in the areas of improved efficiency, lower bandwidth usage, and more accurate recommendations. The examiner disagrees. The specification does not appear to describe the alleged technical solution to a technical problem. The examiner does not find description of providing context relevant content to users over a network, and in particular using distributed storage and analysis to provide relevant content to users in an efficient way or the alleged benefits in the areas of improved efficiency, lower bandwidth usage, and more accurate recommendations. As such, the claims do not support or describe a technical improvement.
Applicant further argues that paragraph [0003] of the specification describe a technical improvement in the fields of content storage, recommendation, and provision of content to users via networks, by providing benefits in the areas of improved efficiency, lower bandwidth usage, and more accurate recommendations particularly when there is an ambiguous input. The examiner disagrees. This paragraph only describes optimally and intelligently disambiguating user input/intent in a conversational system. Disambiguating of user input/intent can be performed mentally by evaluating and analyzing such user input. Further, the specification states that the system makes a disambiguation exchange natural, similar to the ways humans clarify ambiguating in a conversation. Again, this proves that the disambiguation can be performed mentally by humans having a conversation. Using a generic computer to perform such disambiguation does not provide a technical improvement.
Applicant argues that the claimed limitations improve the ability of the system to provide timely and relevant content based on ambiguous inputs, and thus provides a technical solution to a technical problem. The examiner disagrees. The claimed features represent a series of mental steps and additional elements that are mere data gathering/insignificant extra solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional or generic computer components to apply the abstract idea, as documented in the 101 rejection above.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process because a human mind lacks the ability to receive data (metadata and structural knowledge) over a network connection, determine that an ambiguity level of input is between first and second threshold values, disambiguating the input, requesting additional input from a user interface, and selecting a subset of content based on comparison using a weighted vector representation. However, the examiner does not assert that receiving data over a network or requesting additional input from the user interface are mental processes. The limitations of “receiving, over a network connection, for a set of content items, metadata”, “receiving, over the network connection, structural knowledge” , and “requesting and additional input from the user interface” are treated as additional elements. The examiner states that the “receiving” and “requesting” limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the examiner states that the “receiving” and “requesting” recitations are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The examiner disagrees with the argument that the steps of determine that an ambiguity level of input is between first and second threshold values, disambiguating the input, requesting additional input from a user interface, and selecting a subset of content based on comparison using a weighted vector representation cannot be performed mentally. A human can determine that an ambiguity level of input is between first and second threshold values by evaluating/judging ambiguating level compared to threshold values. A human can also disambiguate the input by mental observation and evaluation. Lastly, a human can select a subset of content based on comparison using a weighted vector representation mentally by using observation, evaluation and judgement to think about and compare input with metadata using a weighed vector representation. Applicant has not provided any evidence that these steps cannot be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper.
Applicant argues that the claims, as a whole, integrates the alleged mental process into a practical application. The examiner disagrees. Many of the alleged improvements that Applicant recites are directed to mental processes. An improvement cannot be found in a judicial exception alone. Further, the claimed additional elements are either mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality that are insignificant extra-solution activity, or nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to the judicial exception
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 April 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights