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 .
This Action replaces the previous Final Office Action dated on 02/24/2026, the E-td filed on 05/19/2026 was received and placed in the application. Examiner apologizes for any inconveniences this might cause. The time has been reset.
1. In response to the Office Action dated on 10/22/2025, applicant(s) amend the application as follow:
Claims amended: 3, 11-12, 15-18, 21
Claims canceled: 1
Claims newly added: 2-21
Claims pending: 2-21
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 05/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant(s) argues “the Office Action rejects claims 2-21 under 35 U.S.C 101 as alleged being direct to an abstract idea. Specifically, the Office alleges that the claims recite a mental process. Applicant respectfully traverse the rejection…”
Examiner respectfully disagree with the above arguments. The claim includes identifying steps which are the mental steps perform by human mind.
Applicant argues “even assuming, arguendo, that claims recite an abstract idea at some level of generality, the claims are nonetheless patent-eligible… According, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims of this application integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are patent eligible.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. As explained in the rejection, the processor and memory including algorithm to perform the mental process. And the additional element such as displaying, filtering, cause to display and response to the are also computer process or components which well now and understood.
Applicant(s) also argues “furthermore, the cite an inventive Step in 2B. The combination of filtering comment text using platform-wise historical data, matching filtered text string to keyword associated with other media assets, and dynamically embedding interactable elements within comment text…”
Examiner respectfully disagreed with the above argument. The combination of additional elements filtering comment text, matching filter text are known processes for filtering and matching data. The claim does not recite dynamically embedding interactable elements rather, claim language recite subset of text comment to include a respective interactable element.
Double Patenting
3. The E-td filed on 05/19/2026 was received and placed the application. The E-td has overcome the Obviousness Double Patenting rejection.
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
therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 2-21 are directed to a method, a system and a tangible, non-transitory computer
readable medium which belongs to a statutory class.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims recite “identifying text comments that are displayed with the media asset, wherein the text comments were received from other devices on which the media asset was displayed; identifying a text string in the text comments for modification, and identifying, from among the filtering text string, a text string that matches a keyword for other media assets host on the media platform. ”
These are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer
components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed
in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims recites input/output circuitry and memory including instructions to perform the concept. These are generic computer components and generic computer routine to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements:
“Displaying a user interface of a media platform comprising a media asset” a process displaying the information.
“Filtering a plurality of text strings from the text comments to remove text strings that commonly appear in past text comments associated with media assets hosted on
the media platform” is the process selecting the reduce information from a larger set.
“Modifying a respective occurrence of the text string in a subset of the text comment to include a respective interactable element” is a process for annotating the text to include information.
“Causing display of the text comments on a user device, wherein the display
comprises display of the modified text string in each text comment of the subset of the text comments in which the text string is present” is the process to display the text comment/updated text.
“In response to receiving input interacting with the interactable element, causing display of identifiers of the other media assets associated with the keyword” is the process to display information based on the text comment/modified.
The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations that the courts have
found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial
exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or
mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a
particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by
a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see
MPEP § 2106.05(f)). 2106.05(g)-Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
As to claims 3, 11 and 17, the limitation
"Identifying one or more tags for each available media asset” is a mental process.
“Determining that a respective tag is repeated at least a threshold number of times
across media assets" is mental process.
“In response to determining that the respective tag is repeated at least a threshold number of times across media asset, storing the tag as a keyword" is an additional
element which is insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claims 4, 12 and 18 the limitations
"Comparing a word or grouping of words within a text comment to stored keywords" is a mental process.
“Determining, based on the comparing, that the text string matches a
stored keyword" is a mental process.
These processes are under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer
components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed
in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly,
the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to claims 5, 13 and 19, the limitations
“Response to receiving the input interacting with the interactable element, identifying a plurality of media assets associated with the keyword, wherein the identifiers comprise respective identifiers for each media asset of the plurality of media assets" is the mental process.
As to claims 6, 14 and 20 the limitation "the input interacting with the interactable element comprises hovering a cursor within a threshold distance of the interactable element for greater than a threshold period of time" is the process inputting information and additional element which is insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claim 7, the limitation "the input interacting with the interactable element
comprises selecting the interactable element" is an additional element which is insignificant to
amount significantly more.
As to claim 8, the limitation "selecting the interactable element comprises input from a
user input interface" is interface to allow the selecting interaction and insignificantly to amount
significantly more.
As to claim 9, the limitation " "the user input interface comprises a touchscreen" is only
input interface is and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claims 15 and 21, the limitation “the input interaction with the interactable element comprises one of hovering the cursor within the threshold distance of the interactable element for greater than the threshold period of time, or selecting the interactable using a user interface” is a process of using holding the cursor over the element to input is known process.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 2-21 will be allowed when applicant(s) has overcome the 101 rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 1, 10 and 18, examiner agreed with applicant arguments on pages 9-11 in response filed on 01/26/2026.
Dependent claims 3-9, 11-17 and 19-21 are allowed under the same reason as to claims 2, 10 and 18.
Conclusion
6. 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 BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights