DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to communications filed 6/25/2026. Claims 1-50 are cancelled. Claims 51-68 are pending in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s arguments on page 8 that “For instance, it is not practical for humans to "retrieve a particular viewing history of a particular user account" and "determine a likelihood value that the particular user account will terminate the first service based at least in part on determining that the particular viewing history of the particular user account comprises the first media asset that shares an attribute with the second media asset," as recited by claim 60, as amended. The process of determining a likelihood value based on shared attributes is performed by a computational model and is not practically performed in the human mind and. Operations with models such as this require specialized computer hardware, and a human mind cannot practically implement such operations because they are too complex to be practically done in a way that would yield meaningful results. In addition, "determining that the particular viewing history of the particular user account comprises the first media asset that shares an attribute with the second media asset" as recited by the independent claims involves comparing characteristics of the media assets. This comparison is a computing function that cannot be performed by the human mind”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not provide any specific details about - and therefore places no limits on – how the identifications and the determinations are made, and the plain meanings of “identifying” and “determining” encompass mental observations or evaluations. Additionally, there are no specific limits placed on the argued “computational model” and is therefore considered a generic computing device. Therefore, the rejection of record 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 51-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to Claim 51 is being presented below. However, the Applicants should please note that regarding claim 60, the analysis are similar to that of claim 51, and therefore claim 60 is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 51 recites “A method comprising:
(a) retrieving at least one first viewing activity of at least one user account, wherein the at least one first viewing activity is from a first time period before the at least one user account terminated access to a first service;
(b) identifying a first media asset from the at least one first viewing activity of the at least one user account accessed at the first service;
(c) retrieving at least one second viewing activity of the at least one user account, wherein the at least one second viewing activity is from a second time period after the at least one user account terminated access to the first service;
(d) identifying a second media asset from the at least one second viewing activity of the at least one user account accessed at a second service, wherein the second service is different than the first service;
(e) retrieving a particular viewing history of a particular user account of the first service;
(f) determining a likelihood value that the particular user account will likely to terminate the first service based at least in part on determining that the particular viewing history of the particular user account comprises the first media asset that shares an attribute with the second media asset;
(g) determining if the likelihood value exceeds a first threshold value or a second threshold value;
(h) based at least in part on determining that the likelihood value exceeds the first threshold value, causing for display a first promotion of the first service to retain the particular user account; and
(i) based at least in part on determining that the likelihood value exceeds the second threshold value, wherein the second threshold value is greater than the first threshold value, causing for display a second promotion of the first service to retain the particular user account.
Step 1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. Limitation (b), (d) and (f)-(i) are limitations that, as drafted, reasonably constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind/performed by a human using pen and paper. For example, the steps, in the context of the claims, encompass:
(b) a user reading information, i.e., of a log or report;
(d) a user reading other information, i.e., of a log or report;
(f) calculating a value/solving an equation
(g) making a comparison;
(h) writing down information; and
(i) writing down other information.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional elements of (a), (c), and (e), and control circuitry (claim 60). The control circuitry is an additional element of the claim that is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer component performing generic functions of a computer, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
An evaluation of whether the elements (a), (c), and (e) are “insignificant extra-solution activity” is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong Two analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not the limitations are well-known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, in regards to elements (a), (c), and (e), the claim does not put any limits on how the information is retrieved.
When so evaluated, elements (a), (c), and (e) are, then, merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data, which the courts have identified as functions that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claim do no more than automate the mental process that a person can use to perform. There is no change to computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract idea, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int'l v. 1BG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer's functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and simply adding extra-solution activity, which does integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
Additionally, the rejected dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore are not patent-eligible.
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 CHENEA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9524 and whose email address is CHENEA.SMITH@USPTO.GOV.. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/CHENEA DAVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights