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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to the application filed on 11/13/2024.
Claims 21-29, 31-39 and 41-42 stand rejected, objected to and are pending in this Office Action. Claims 21 and 31 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 11/26/2025 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97(c) and therein have been considered. Its corresponding PTO-1449s have been electronically signed as attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 31, the claim recites “received a second search query from the device associated with a user; and control circuitry configured to: …” in which “received” seems to be a typographical error of “receive”.
Further per claim 31, the claim recites “based on the first search query and the second search query, determining a window of time during which the user intends to view a media asset;” as a step the control circuitry is configured to perform. As such, the “determining” seems to be a typographical error of “determine”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully and respectfully considered. As per the Examiner’s responses, please refer to below discussions.
On Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 made to Claims 21, 30-31, and 40 as unpatentable over Garg in view of Long, the Applicant “submits that neither Garg nor Long teach determining a third set of media assets scheduled for delivery during a window of time based on determining that a first and second set of media assets are not available within the window of time of amended claims 21 and 31.”, the Examiner respectfully submits that a new reference published to Freebeck is now incorporated in the instant action for providing explicit teaching to the subject matter.
As per the argument of “Applicant submits that neither Garg nor Long teach determining a third set of media assets scheduled for delivery during a window of time based on determining that a first and second set of media assets are not available within the window of time of amended claims 21 and 31.”, the Examiner respectfully submits that the time of window is more specifically interpreted as the time window between the query results being started to download and before download completion and the scheduled particular time for reviewing the result.
As per Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 made to claims 21-40 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, and in particular to an abstract idea of a mental process, the Applicant argued that “Claims with limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind do not recite a mental process, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. See SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(111). Examples of such claims include a method for a detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets, SRI Int'l, 930 F.3d at 1304. Thus, methods that include steps that are not practical to be performed in the human mind, e.g., analyzing network packets, are not regarded as mental processes.”, the Examiner respectfully submits that each and every limitation of the set of claims has been thoroughly analyzed based on the subject matter eligibility criteria, and further respectfully introduced the activity of grocery purchasing, a daily routine that can be practically performed in the human mind, to make an analogous comparison and interpretations. Based on the analysis, comparison and interpretations, the Examiner respectfully submits the rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 made to claims 21-40 still seems to be reasonable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As per claim 42, the claim recites “The system of claim 32, wherein the third set of media assets are determined based at least in part on metadata associated with the first set of media assets and the second set of media assets”.
However, none of the three sets of media assets was recited or described in the claim 32 upon which claim 42 depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 21-29, 31-39 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 21 and 31, similarly and each respectively recites
A method comprising: [below operations (or steps, hereafter)];
A system comprising:
input/output circuitry configured to:
receive a first search query from a device associated with a user; and
received a second search query from the device associated with a user; and control circuitry configured to:
determine, based on the first search query, a first set of media assets;
determine, based on the second search query, a second set of media assets;
based on the first search query and the second search query, determining a window of time during which the user intends to view a media asset; and
based on determining that the first set of media assets or the second set of media assets are not available for viewing during the determined window of time:
determine a third set of media assets that are scheduled for delivery during the window of time; and
generating for display on the device associated with a user identifiers of the third set of media assets.
a). In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
Claims 21 and 31 similarly recite four limitations (or “elements” hereafter) primarily:
Receiving queries;
Determining media assets as search results;
determining unavailable media assets; and
generating and displaying subsequent available search results.
As claim texts drafted by a set of limitations (or elements) of each of the following categories: Receiving queries; Determining search results; determining unavailable and available query results and displaying the available, including:
“receive a first search query from a device associated with a user” ; and “received a second search query from the device associated with a user” are clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation performed in human mind. In similar human routine activities, for example, in the daily activities, receiving grocery items listing for purchasing;
“determine, based on the first search query, a first set of media assets”; and “determine, based on the second search query, a second set of media assets” are clearly an abstract idea of concepts of evaluation performed in human mind. In similar human routine activities, for example, in the daily activities, determining if the grocery items on the grocery shelves;
“based on the first search query and the second search query, determining a window of time during which the user intends to view a media asset” is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of judgment performed in human mind. In similar human routine activities, for example, in the daily activities, determining the time window of the valid duration or the best used by on the grocery items label;
“based on determining that the first set of media assets or the second set of media assets are not available for viewing during the determined window of time” is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of judgment performed in human mind. In similar human routine activities, for example, in the daily activities, determining the time window of the valid duration or the best used by on the grocery items label for items not available on the purchasing listing;
“determine a third set of media assets that are scheduled for delivery during the window of time” is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of judgment performed in human mind. In similar human routine activities, for example, in the daily activities, determining the time window of the valid duration or the best used by on the grocery items label as substitute for the unavailable items; and
“generating for display on the device associated with a user identifiers of the third set of media assets” an abstract idea of concepts of judgment and opinion performed in human mind. In similar human routine activities, for example, in the daily activities, determining the time window of the valid duration or the best used by on the grocery items label as proper substitute for the unavailable items.
None of the qualifying conditions to the limitations as included and analyzed in the above descriptions provides nothing that precludes the step from practically being conceptually performed in the mind by judgement with optional observation, evaluation and opinion performed in the mind. With respect to all limitations as recited, all can be interpreted as grocery shopping, the limitations as a whole clearly belongs to a group of abstract ideas as mental process as concepts can be performed in the human mind.
As such, the limitation is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement that can be performed in human mind optionally with help of paper for notes. Reciting of “input/output circuitry” and “control circuitry”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being conceptually performed in the mind.
Accordingly, other than reciting “input/output circuitry” and “control circuitry”, the limitations are mental processes as concepts can be performed by human mind through observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement. Even without a help paper and pencil, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being conceptually performed in the mind.
The claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of software implemented modules or even considered as generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human” to be an abstract idea, as the Examiner utilized an example of grocery shopping activity.
Therefore, it is the steps that can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas that the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ are open to all.
Accordingly, the claims 21 and 31 recite an abstract idea.
b) In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “input/output circuity” and “control circuitry”. The additional components suggested as software module implemented or as generic computer components even being recited as additional limitations, however, do not preclude the claims from reciting an abstract idea. For instance, as the above detailed analysis on the limitations as abstract ideas that can be performed mentally in mind by human, without reciting any “additional element” to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The processes of Receiving queries; Determining media assets as search results; determining unavailable media assets; and generating and displaying subsequent available search results, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using “input/output circuity” and “control circuitry” as software implemented modules or even as a generic computer components, in the processes. That is, the limitations represent well-understood routine and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). Accordingly, even considering all the elements as additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
c) In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
The claims 21 and 31 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there is simply no additional elements adding to the already analyzed very few minimal steps of determining. The steps, represent well-understood routine and conventional activity previously known to the industry and are specified at a high level of generality, and in the context of the limitations reciting determining that can be practically performed in the human mind and may be considered to fall within the mental process grouping.
As such, the limitations represent well-understood routine and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-29, 32-39 and 4-42 include all the limitations of claims 21 and 31, respectively. Therefore, claims 22-29, 32-39 and 4-42 recite the same abstract idea of determining by viewing practically being performed in the mind, and the ana lysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
Accordingly, dependent claims 22-29, 32-39 and 4-42 recite no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as respectively defined in independent claims 21 and 31, respectively.
In particularly:
Claims 22 and 32 similarly recite the limitation(s):
“calculating one or more distances in a relationship graph between a first attribute of a first search result that matches the first search query and a second attribute of a second search result that matches the second search query;
selecting one or more connections between the first attribute and the second attribute based on the calculated distances; and
determining the shared intent based on the selected one or more connections in the relationship graph.”.
The limitation “calculating one or more distances in a relationship graph between a first attribute of a first search result that matches the first search query and a second attribute of a second search result that matches the second search query” is recited as mathematical calculations in the category mathematical concepts belonging to the groupings of Abstract Ideas. The limitations “selecting one or more connections between the first attribute and the second attribute based on the calculated distances” and “determining the shared intent based on the selected one or more connections in the relationship graph” are mental processes as concepts can be performed by human mind through observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only implicitly recite additional elements – “input/output circuity” and “control circuitry”. The additional components are suggested as software implemented modules or even as generic computer components being recited as additional limitations, however, do not preclude the claims from reciting an abstract idea. For instance, as the above detailed analysis on the four minimal limitations of claims 21 and 31 as abstract ideas that can be performed mentally in mind by human, without reciting any “additional element” to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of the limitations encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, 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. As such, the limitations represent well-understood routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to an 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.
Claims 23 and 33 similarly recite the limitation(s) “wherein the relationship graph has a collection of nodes and edges, the edges representing direct connections between nodes, and wherein each of the calculated distances indicate a distance between two nodes in the relationship graph”.
As recited as mathematical calculations in the category mathematical concepts belonging to the groupings of Abstract Ideas and as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, is clearly a performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of software implemented modules or even as generic computer components generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of this limitation encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, 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. As such, the limitation represents well-understood routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to an 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.
Claims 24 and 34 similarly recite the limitation(s) “wherein each of the calculated distances is measured in a number of hops between two nodes”.
As recited as concepts as mathematical calculations in the category mathematical concepts belonging to the groupings of Abstract Ideas and as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, is clearly a performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of software implemented modules or even as generic computer components generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of this limitation encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, 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. As such, the limitation represents well-understood routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to an 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.
Claims 25 and 35 similarly recite the limitation(s) “wherein each edge has a weight and wherein each of the calculated distances is a combination of weights of edges connecting two nodes”.
As recited as concepts as mathematical calculations in the category mathematical concepts belonging to the groupings of Abstract Ideas and as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, is clearly a performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of software implemented modules or even as generic computer components generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of this limitation encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, 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. As such, the limitation represents well-understood routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to an 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.
Claims 26 and 36 similarly recite the limitation(s) “wherein the calculated distances are based further on how often the nodes were used together according to historical inputs”.
As recited as concepts as mathematical calculations in the category mathematical concepts belonging to the groupings of Abstract Ideas and as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, is clearly a performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of software implemented modules or even as generic computer components generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of this limitation encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, 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. As such, the limitation represents well-understood routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to an 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.
Claims 27 and 37 similarly recite the limitation(s) “wherein at least one of the calculated distances is modified by user preferences acquired over time”.
As recited as concepts as mathematical calculations in the category mathematical concepts belonging to the groupings of Abstract Ideas and as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, is clearly a performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of software implemented modules or even as generic computer components generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of this limitation encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, 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. As such, the limitation represents well-understood routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to an 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.
Claims 28 and 38 similarly recite the limitation(s) “wherein the first attribute comprises a first smart tag, a first category, or a first microcategory, and wherein at least one of the first smart tag, the first category, and the first microcategory are determined by applying a set of predetermined rules to the first search query or by applying a naive Bayes classifier to the first search query”.
As recited as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, as viewing category of grocery items in the as example above, activities include adjusting and updating the items to create a list of list of the grocery items, as similarly described in claims 21 and 31 interpretations above, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of the limitations encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, 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. As such, the limitations represent well-understood routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to an 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.
Claims 29 and 39 similarly recite the limitation(s)
“wherein the first attribute comprises a first smart tag, a first category, or a first microcategory,
wherein the second attribute comprises a second smart tag, a second category, or a second microcategory, and
wherein selecting the one or more connections between one or more of (a) the first smart tag and the second smart tag, (b) the first category and the second category, and (c) the first microcategory and the second microcategory based on the calculated distances comprises:
comparing the calculated distances between one or more of (a) the first smart tag and the second smart tag, (b) the first category and the second category, and ( c) the first microcategory and the second microcategory;
determining whether one or more of the calculated distances is within a relationship distance threshold; and
in response to determining that one or more of the calculated distances is within the relationship distance threshold, selecting the one or more connections that are associated with the calculated distances within the relationship distance threshold.”.
The claims recite a combinations of few qualifying conditions and operation steps. However, as recited, they are merely recited as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, similarly to viewing category of grocery items in the as example above, activities include adjusting and updating the items to create a list of list of the grocery items, as similarly described in claims 21 and 31 interpretations above, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of the limitations encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, 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. As such, the limitations represent well-understood routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to an 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.
Claims 41 and 42 similarly recite the limitation(s) “wherein the third set of media assets are determined based at least in part on metadata associated with the first set of media assets and the second set of media assets”.
As recited as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, as viewing category of grocery items in the as example above, activities include adjusting and updating the items to create a list of list of the grocery items of different categories such as fruits, vegetables and meats, as similarly described in claims 21 and 31 interpretations above, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of the limitations encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, 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. As such, the limitations represent well-understood routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim is directed to an 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.
In conclusion, the limitations of the claims 22-29, 32-39 and 41-42 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements represent well-understood routine and conventional activity previously known to the industry and are specified at a high level of generality (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 31-39 and 42 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 31, the claim recites a system comprising “input/output circuitry configured to …” and “control circuitry configured to …”.
A circuitry may be comprehended as a detailed plan or arrangement of an electric circuit. As such, the claim does not have a physically structured hardware component, is not self a physically structured hardware. The circuitries as detailed plans or arrangements of an electric circuits may be modules.
A system comprising modules as software capable of performing specific functions of method steps does not place the server system a physically structured computer system equipped with memory or processor.
Furthermore, a module comprehended by an ordinary skilled in the art as a collection of routines and data structures that performs a particular task or implements a particular abstract data type. Therefore a module is clearly not a physically structured component or device. To the best, the mechanism is a software implemented module of an algorithm, as comprehended by an ordinary skilled in the art.
Accordingly and furthermore, the modules are clearly not a machine or an article of manufacture having physical supporting structure, are not a series of steps or act as a processor, nor a combination of chemical compounds to be a composition of matter. As such, they fail to fall within a statutory category. They are, at best, functional descriptive material per se.
Descriptive material can be characterized as either “functional descriptive material” or “nonfunctional descriptive material.” Both types of “descriptive material” are non-statutory when claimed as descriptive material per se, 33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759. When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Compare In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Merely claiming non-functional descriptive material, i.e., even if stored on a computer-readable medium, in a computer, executed by a processor, or on an electromagnetic carrier signal, abstract ideas does not make it statutory. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185-86, 209 USPQ at 8: (noting that the claims for an algorithm in Benson were unpatentable as abstract ideas because “the sole practical application of the algorithm was in connection with the programming of a general purpose computer”).
As per claims 32-39 and 42, the claims respectively depend upon claim 31, directly or indirectly, and inherit the deficiency of being non-statutory from claim 31 and do not rectify the deficiency individually or by inheritance. Therefore, the consequence is non-statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of - 35 USC § 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 21, 31 and 41 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over
Garg et al.: "DEMOTION OF REPETITIVE SEARCH RESULTS" (United States Patent US 8051076 B1, Date Published 2011-11-01; and Date Filed 2007-12-13, hereafter "Garg”), in view of
Long et al.: "ADVERTISEMENT MANAGEMENT FOR LIVE INTERNET MULTIMEDIA CONTENT" (United States Patent Application Publication US 20100205049 A1, Date Published 2010-08-12; and Date Filed 2009-02-12, hereafter "Long”), and further in view of
Freebeck; Peter: "PHYSICIAN MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AND METHOD" (United States Patent Application Publication US 20130103768 A1, Date Published 2013-04-25; and Date Filed 2011-10-24, hereafter "Freebeck”).
As per claim 21, Garg teaches a computer implemented method comprising:
determining, based on a first search query, received from a device associated with a user, a first set of media assets (See col. 1, lines 9-12 and col. 2, lines 60-62, content items (e.g. video and/or audio files, web pages) of particular interest to a user can be identified by a search engine in response to a user query and a user device can submit a query 109 to the search engine 104, and search results 111 can be provided to the user device. Here the device the user submitting a query is associated with the user as the user can use the device to submit query and the video and/or audio files, web pages as content items queried and returned teaches the media assets);
determining, based on a second search query received from the device associated with the user, a second set of media assets (See col. 1, lines 39-43, a second set of search results responsive to a second query during the search session is identified),
based on the first search query and the second search query (See col. 1, lines 42-43, a first and a second sets of search results responsive to a first and a second queries are identified, respectively, during a search session, and each result in each of the query results sets has a corresponding relevancy score.).
Garg teaches the video and/or audio files, web pages as content items query results reads on the media assets as query based results above, however, Garg does not explicitly teach determining a window of time during which the user intends to view a media asset.
On the other hand, Long teaches determining a window of time during which the user intends to view a media asset based on returning query media assets sets (See [0006] and [0009], user can start viewing the requested content without waiting for the entire media file to completely download and the beginning of the piece of content is scheduled to be played by a media player at a particular point in time. Here the duration between after “downloading starting (before downloading completion)” and before “scheduled playing at a particular point in time” for viewing the content items (media assets) teaches the window of the time).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the Applicant’s application was filed to combine Long’s teaching with Garg because Long is dedicated to delivery of multimedia content and the advertisement management for multimedia content for a live event delivered over the Internet and Garg is dedicated to processing repetitive search results, and the combined teaching of Garg and Long references would have further improve performance of Garg’s system by scheduling the identification and demotion of repetitive content items to facilitate the serving of content item.
Concerning “based on determining that the first set of media assets or the second set of media assets are not available for viewing during the determined window of time”, Garg in view of Long further teaches delivery query results as media assets for user to view during the determined window of time as described above and further teaches providing repetitive search results after determining and making some results unavailable by demoting (See Garg: col. 4, lines 3-6, identifying repetitive search results in a subsequent set of search results for a search session and demote some or all of the identified repetitive search results in the subsequent set of search results).
However, Garg in view of Long does not explicitly teach based on determining that the first set of media assets or the second set of media assets are not available for viewing.
On the other hand, Freebeck teaches based on determining that the first set of media assets or the second set of media assets are not available for viewing (See [0104], enables a first provider to communicate and request a consult with a second provider regarding a medical procedure or service, where the second provider and alternative providers practice the medical procedure or service. When the availability status for the second provider indicates that the second provider is unavailable.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the Applicant’s application was filed to combine Freebeck’s teaching with Garg in view of Long because Freebeck is dedicated to an efficient and economical approach to providing physicians control of configurable secure communications between the physician and other healthcare professionals, including flexible paging communications, Long is dedicated to delivery of multimedia content and the advertisement management for multimedia content for a live event delivered over the Internet and Garg is dedicated to processing repetitive search results, and the combined teaching of Garg and Long references would have further improve performance of Garg in view of Long’s system by providing efficient, flexible and economical approach for returning search results.
Garg in view of Long and further in view Freebeck further teaches:
determining a third set of media assets that are scheduled for delivery during the window of time (See Freebeck: [0104], displays an availability status for each of the alternative providers and selects one of the alternative providers displayed as available.); and
generating for display on the device associated with a user identifiers of the third set of media assets (See Freebeck: [0077] and [0104], the user ID uniquely identifies the physician user, and that user has a fixed set of associated hospital affiliations; and displays an availability status for each of the alternative providers and selects one of the alternative providers displayed as available).
As per claim 31, Garg teaches a system comprising:
input/output circuitry (See Garg: col. 3, lines 31-32 and 44-45, the user may submit multiple queries to the search engine during a search session and The search engine 104 can store the search results for each query in a search session.) and control circuitry (See Garg: col. 4, lines 3-6, a demotion engine 112 that can identify repetitive search results in a subsequent set of search results for a search session and demote some or all of the identified repetitive search results in the subsequent set of search results) configured to:
receive a first search query from a device associated with a user (See col. 1, lines 9-12 and col. 2, lines 60-62, content items (e.g. video and/or audio files, web pages) of particular interest to a user can be identified by a search engine in response to a user query and a user device can submit a query 109 to the search engine 104, and search results 111 can be provided to the user device. Here the device the user submitting a query is associated with the user as the user can use the device to submit query and the video and/or audio files, web pages as content items queried and returned teaches the media assets); and
received a second search query from the device associated with a user (See col. 1, lines 39-43, a second set of search results responsive to a second query during the search session is identified); and further
perform the rest of operations recited as steps of the method of claim 21, and rejected above under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Garg in view of Long and further in view Freebeck.
Accordingly, claim 31 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected claim 21.
As per claim 41, Garg in view of Long and further in view Freebeck teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the third set of media assets are determined based at least in part on metadata associated with the first set of media assets and the second set of media assets (See Long: [0037], The metadata file may include information, such as, for example, a start index, a duration, an end index, whether the content is live, proprietary publisher data, encryption level, content duration, bit rate values, including frame size, audio channel information, codecs used to encode the portions of the video, sample rates, and frame rate. The metadata file may include various parameters about the available video quality profiles 213 for the streaming video 211).
Claims 22-29, 32-39 and 42 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over
Garg in view of Long and further in view Freebeck, as applied to claims 21, 31 and 41 above, and further in view of
Selinger et al.: "SYSTEM AND PROCESS FOR IMPROVING PRODUCT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE IN PROVIDING PERSONALIZED ADVERTISEMENTS TO RETAIL CUSTOMERS" (United States Patent Application Publication US 20090281923 A1, Date Published 2009-11-12; and Date Filed 2008-05-06, hereafter " Selinger”).
As per claim 22, Garg in view of Long and further in view Freebeck does not explicitly teach the method of claim 21, wherein determining the shared intent comprises:
calculating one or more distances in a relationship graph between a first attribute of a first search result that matches the first search query and a second attribute of a second search result that matches the second search query.
However, Selinger teaches the method of claim 21, wherein determining the shared intent comprises:
calculating one or more distances in a relationship graph between a first attribute of a first search result that matches the first search query and a second attribute of a second search result that matches the second search query (See [0092], [0097] and [0126], the contextual relationship graphs may each relate to category or a relationship between products and categories; the set of product graphs is further optimized by filtering the set using the attributes of the web page 22, the attributes of the user 26 and the attributes associated with the user's request and identifying first order relationships between text and contextual relationship graphs, and the graph nodes may be related to each other through positive or negative relationships and the relationships may be weighted for various reasons, including distance between nodes in the text being analyzed (e.g., distance may be defined by the number of words, characters, special characters, sentences, etc. between identified nodes) and/or the clustering/relationship of nodes within contextual relationship graph structures).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the Applicant’s application was filed to combine Selinger’s teaching with Garg in view of Long and further in view Freebeck because Selinger is dedicated to Selinger is dedicated to selecting recommendations based on past performance of the model or models previously used to provide the recommendations, Freebeck is dedicated to an efficient and economical approach to providing physicians control of configurable secure communications between the physician and other healthcare professionals, including flexible paging communications, Long is dedicated to delivery of multimedia content and the advertisement management for multimedia content for a live event delivered over the Internet and Garg is dedicated to processing repetitive search results, and the combined teaching of Selinger and Garg in view of Long references would have further improve performance of Garg in view of Long and further in view Freebeck’s system to more accurately processing and delivering better query result by analyzing the context in which the result is to be delivered or processed in light of known attributes of the content of the query result.
Garg in view of Long and further in view Freebeck and Selinger further teaches:
selecting one or more connections between the first attribute and the second attribute based on the calculated distances (See Selinger: [0097] and [0126], the set of product graphs is further optimized by filtering the set using the attributes of the web page 22, the attributes of the user 26 and the attributes associated with the user's request. The results may further be filtered using any other contextual attributes, profile attributes and behavioral attributes, including user behavior feedback in which product graphs may be filtered out of the process based on low click through rates or other learned information that is collected and fed back into the system for providing targeted content 10. Here the connections in the optimized and filtered graphs read