DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on November 26, 2024 has been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim recites “…computing a respective overlapping metric for each mental state of the plurality of mental states”. This term lack clear, objective boundaries and therefore render the claim indefinite. The claim does not define any similarity measure or distant metric etc. This is a purely functional term without structural or algorithmic definition. Since claims 2-10 are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1, they inherit the same problem. Claim 11 is similar to claim 1. Since claims 12-20 are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 11, they inherit the same problem.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. Claims 1 and 11 are directed to a method comprising: capturing biometric and physiological characteristics, accessing a data table of mental-state parameters, comparing the captured characteristics to stored parameters, computing overlapping metrics, determining a mental state, and generating a media asset recommendation based on the mental state.
Step 2A, Prong 1: recites a judicial exception – Claims 1 and 11 recites multiple abstract ideas including:
Mental Processes – The claim recites steps that involve: comparing data, evaluating biometric characteristics, determining a mental state, and generating a recommendation. These are mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or performed with a pen and paper and are therefore abstract ideas. Therefore, all these limitations are mental processes as set forth in MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)(III).
Mathematical Concepts – The claim requires computing an overlapping metric, comparing sets of parameters. These are mathematical operations, which fall within the mathematical concepts category of abstract ideas.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – The last step is “generating for display a media asset recommendation”. This is a content recommendation, which the court treats as managing personal behavior, tailoring information, organizing human activity.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the claims do not recite any specific hardware implementation. The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. The claims merely uses a generic computer operations to capture data, compare data, classify mental states, and recommend content. The steps are result-oriented and do not specify how the operations are technically performed.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite significantly more. The additional elements in claims 1 and 11 does not amount to an inventive concept. The claims recites capturing biometric characteristics, accessing a data table, comparing parameters, computing metrics, determining a mental state, generating a recommendation. These are routine, conventional computer functions performed in a generic manner. The courts have consistently held that collecting data, analyzing data, classifying data and recommending content, even when using biometric inputs do not constitute an inventive concept. There is no unconventional hardware, no specific algorithmic improvement, and no technological advancement.
Regarding claims 2-10, 12-20, the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they are merely additional insignificant extra-solution activities/steps for processing information and are essentially part of the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9-12, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0314645) in view of Newell et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0264182).
Regarding claim 1, Everett et al. discloses a method comprising:
capturing a set of biometric and physiological characteristics of a user while a media asset is being generated for display (see paragraph 0021, 0026, 0034; viewers wearing monitoring devices transmitting pulse rate, temperature, blood pressure, and camera 185 capturing facial expressions during presentation of a TV program);
comparing the set of biometric and physiological characteristics of the user to the stored biometric and physiological parameters associated with the plurality of mental states (see paragraph 0027; comparing emotional data (heart rate, facial expression) with expected emotional responses).
However, Everett et al. is silent as to accessing a data table storing biometric and physiological parameters respectively associated with a plurality of mental states; based at least in part on the comparing, computing a respective overlapping metric for each mental state of the plurality of mental states; determining a first mental state of the plurality of mental states corresponding to a highest overlapping metric; designating the first mental state as the mental state of the user; and generating for display a media asset recommendation based at least in part on the mental state of the user.
Newell et al. discloses accessing a data table storing biometric and physiological parameters respectively associated with a plurality of mental states (see paragraphs 0018-0021, 0031-0032 and fig. 4 (410 – user emotional database); an Emotional State Monitor (ESM) with EEG (Electroencephalography) sensors and a user emotional database (410 in fig. 4) that stores emotional states and associated biometric parameters);
based at least in part on the comparing, computing a respective overlapping metric for each mental state of the plurality of mental states (see paragraphs 0021-0024 and fig. 4; spectral analysis of EEG signals to identify neural oscillations (brain waves) correlated with emotional states. This is effectively computing metrics for each candidate mental state);
determining a first mental state of the plurality of mental states corresponding to a highest overlapping metric (see paragraphs 0021, 0029-0032, fig. 4; analyzing emotional information to determine emotional preferences/dislikes/disinterest, i.e., selecting the dominant emotional state from competing signals);
designating the first mental state as the mental state of the user (see paragraphs 0031-0032, fig. 4; the system identifies emotional-based preferences/dislikes/disinterests based on anticipated emotional responses, thereby designating the user’s emotional state); and
generating for display a media asset recommendation based at least in part on the mental state of the user (see paragraphs 0017-0020, 0032-0034, fig. 4(424,426); recommending media content events to the user based on identified emotional states, and presenting those recommendations on a display).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Everett et al. with the teachings of Newell et al., the motivation being to improve user engagement and satisfaction.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Everett et al. and Newell et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1 and 11). Everett et al. discloses associating the set of biometric and physiological characteristics of the user with an event occurring in the media asset, wherein the event comprises a first participant (see paragraphs 0026, 0034, 0037, fig. 5).
Newell et al. discloses associating the set of biometric and physiological characteristics of the user with an event occurring in the media asset, wherein the event comprises a first participant (see paragraph 0024; synchronizing EEG data with image capture to identify objects/events in the user’s field of view that elicit emotional responses);
determining a user preference corresponding to the first participant based on the set of biometric and physiological characteristics of the user (see paragraphs 0018-0021, 0031-0032, fig. 4; determining emotional-based preferences/dislikes/disinterests based on biometric/emotional data associated with participants/events);
determining whether a conflict exists between the user preference corresponding to the first participant and one or more user interest indicators associated with a user profile of the user (see paragraphs 0018-0021, 0029-0032, fig. 4; analyzing emotional information against stored user preferences/dislikes/disinterests);
in response to determining that the conflict exists: logging the conflict with an error log corresponding to the user profile (see paragraph 0031, fig. 4 (428-1, 428-2; 410 emotional database); storing emotional experiences/preferences/dislikes in a database associated with the user profile. This inherently includes conflicts between detected preferences and stored indicators); and
refraining from recommending the media asset recommendation to the user based on the user preference corresponding to the first participant (see paragraphs 0020-0033, fig. 4; refraining from recommending media content events that correspond to emotional dislikes/disinterests); and
generating a different media asset recommendation to the user based on the user preference corresponding to the first participant (see paragraphs 0020, 0032-0034).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Everett et al. and Newell et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1 and 11). Everett et al. discloses wherein the media asset is transmitted from a linear data source (see paragraphs 0003, 0016-0020, 0037 and fig. 9).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Everett et al. and Newell et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1 and 11). Everett et al. discloses wherein capturing the set of biometric and physiological characteristics of the user while the media asset is being generated for display comprises detecting at least one of: a pulse rate, a blood pressure, a body temperature, an electroencephalogram pattern, a pupil dilation pattern, a body part movement orientation, a body part movement velocity, a pose or a gesture of a body part and a facial expression (see paragraph 0021; pulse rate, blood pressure, body temperature).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett et al. and Newell et al. as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Sahu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0338180).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Everett et al. and Newell et al. discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 2 and 12). Newell et al. discloses in response to determining that the conflict exists:
updating the one or more user interest indicators associated with the user profile (see paragraph 0031 and fig. 4(410)); and
generating a media asset recommendation based on the updated one or more user interest indicators associated with the user profile (see paragraphs 0032-0034, fig. 4).
However, Everett et al. and Newell et al. are silent as to generating sporting event media asset recommendation.
Sahu et al. discloses generating sporting event media asset recommendation (see abstract and paragraphs 0003, 006).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Everett et al. and Newell et al. with the teachings of Sahu et al., the motivation being to improve provide sports recommendation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 14-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NNENNA NGOZI EKPO whose telephone number is (571)270-1663. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 10:00am - 6:30pm, TH-F 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
NNENNA EKPO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/NNENNA N EKPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 December 20, 2025.