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 .
This action is in response to Application filed January 22, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner has presented the rejections of all of the independent claims first (e.g. claims 1, 8 and 15) followed subsequently by the rejections of the respective dependent claims.
No information disclosure statements filed with this Application. If the applicant is aware of any prior art or any other co-pending applications not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Specification
The Specification has been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any grammatical/spelling or any other errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 USC 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, e.g. claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1. The method of claims 1-7, system of claims 8-14 and non-transitory computer-readable medium of claims 15-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. Prong one of the 2019 PEG:
1. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one, the limitations are directed to additional elements include computer, system, processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
2. The limitations are recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 are receiving an identification of a set of communication channels presenting media content; identifying current media content being presented over the set of communication channels; generating one or more keywords associated with the current media content, wherein the one or more keywords are generated by a machine-learning model trained to interpret natural language associated with the current media content; receiving, from a user device, a search query; and presenting the one or more recommended communication channels on the user device etc., is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is, other than reciting computer, database, processor, system and memory, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The steps can be done my nominally, insignificantly or can consider as a data gathering performance, selecting, identifying, audio, video data and sending over the internet. Further, the machine learning as recited in the claim does not improve technological environment. Also, is not improvement of technology or improvement computer itself. Thus the limitations are directed to routine and conventional and abstract mental process. If a claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites computer, system, processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium. The computer, system, processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality or insignificant extra solution activity such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, Accordingly, these additional element (computer, system, processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recited additional limitations, such that generating one or more recommended communication channels, wherein the one or more recommended communication channels are associated with one or more associated keywords similar to the search query.. These limitations are a context which encompasses user inputting and searching any song or artist of the song information on the internet and listening or watching those media contact which they have interest on. The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality, they are directed to mental process or they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner (MPEP § 2106.05(f); MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data (e.g. Symantec...;TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC...; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc... ; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc...; Storing and retrieving information in memory (e.g. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc..). Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer function merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by human thinking. Using generic computing components (e.g. computer, database, processor, system and memory) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract and is not enough to transform an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 23 recites subset of communication channels, a duration time, updated keywords can consider additional data for a media content, set time by user and change update interest for the media contact. These limitations are mental process. Dependent claim 3 recited the limitations of receiving, from the user device, feedback associated with recommended communication channels, which are merely input steps and user interest. These limitations are mental process. Dependent claims 4 and 5 recited the limitations of machine-learning trained using transfer learning, keywords are generated by receiving data from the set of communication channels. These limitations are describing using machine-learning and input step for a user, which are mental process. Dependent claims 6 and 7 recited the limitations of user profile, keyword comprises one of song title, a song categorization, a topic of discussion, a subject matter, names of one or more hosts, broadcast location of a media source or title of a programming. These limitations are describing particular user and the user interest with media content, which are merely mental process. Dependent claims 9-14 are same scope as claims 2-7 and are similarly rejected. Dependent claims 16-20 are same scope as claims 2-6 and are similarly rejected. The claim recited limitations are merely abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 103
8. 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 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.
9. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill (US 2024/0412542 A1), hereinafter O’Neill in view of Adyanthaya et al. (US 2023/0156058 A1), hereinafter Adyanthaya.
As for claim 1, O’Neill teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving an identification of a set of communication channels presenting media content (see [0008], e.g., receiving a media content identifier, obtaining the media content based on the received media content identifier);
identifying current media content being presented over the set of communication channels (see [0008], media contact identifier and the media content into scenes based on visual and audio cues, each scene including a series of images) ;
generating one or more keywords associated with the current media content, wherein the one or more keywords are generated by a machine-learning model trained to interpret natural language associated with the current media content (see [0065], e.g., machine learning algorithm or artificial intelligence model and the like used to any of a variety of information structures that used by a computing device to perform a computation or evaluate a specific condition, feature, factor, dataset, [0089], medica content include views, likes comments and any tags or keyword associated with the contact. Media contact content used analyze and quantify the public reception and interaction with the media content);
receiving, from a user device, a search query; generating one or more recommended communication channels, wherein the one or more recommended communication channels are associated with one or more associated keywords…..to the search query; and presenting the one or more recommended communication channels on the user device (see [0009], e.g., a convolutional neural network (CNN) model to identify the primary objects, [0010], natural language processing (NLP) technique to covert non-Latin characters in the extracted text, querying the database to identify the ToIs based on the extracted text and the determined object attributes includes querying the database to identify the ToIs based on the extracted text, search and update a ToI knowledge repository, [0089], any tags or keyword associated with the contact).
O’Neill teaches the claimed invention including the limitations of one or more associated keywords, to the search query ([0089]). O’Neill do not explicitly teach the limitations of “one or more associated keywords similar to the search query”. In the same field of endeavor, Adyanthaya teaches the limitations of “one or more associated keywords similar to the search query” (see [0042], e.g., user interface accepts user input of a query, [0088], e.g., sequence of broadcast sources (or media streams) generated based on the constraints such that the broadcast sources each have one or more common properties (e.g., location, genre, etc.)).
O’Neill and Adyanthaya both references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are from the same field of endeavor, such as sending and receiving media content data using broadcast or communication channel. Monitoring and reviewing the media content data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Adyanthaya’s teaching to O’Neill system for presenting media streams based on changes in geolocation. Thus, facilitating a presentation of the first media stream by the user device; receiving a second positioning signal indicating a second geographical location of the user device. The media streams based on changes in geolocation have benefits, such as receiving route information corresponding to a route in which a user device is planned to travel (see Adyanthaya, [0006]-[0007]).
As for claim 8,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 1 because claim 8 is a system claim for implementing those steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Adyanthaya’s teaching to O’Neill system for presenting media streams based on changes in geolocation. Thus, facilitating a presentation of the first media stream by the user device; receiving a second positioning signal indicating a second geographical location of the user device. The media streams based on changes in geolocation have benefits, such as receiving route information corresponding to a route in which a user device is planned to travel (see Adyanthaya, [0006]-[0007]).
As for claim 15,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 1 because claim 15 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim for implementing those steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Adyanthaya’s teaching to O’Neill system for presenting media streams based on changes in geolocation. Thus, facilitating a presentation of the first media stream by the user device; receiving a second positioning signal indicating a second geographical location of the user device. The media streams based on changes in geolocation have benefits, such as receiving route information corresponding to a route in which a user device is planned to travel (see Adyanthaya, [0006]-[0007]).
As to claim 2, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
O’Neill and Adyanthaya teach:
generating, according to the one or more keywords, a subset of communication channels, wherein the subset of communication channels is associated with a duration of time; after the duration of time, identifying updated current media content being presented over the subset of communication channels; and generating one or more updated keywords associated with the current media content (see O’Neill, [0010], [0090]).
As to claim 3, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
O’Neill and Adyanthaya teach:
further comprising: receiving, from the user device, feedback associated with the one or more recommended communication channels; and updating the machine-learning model according to the feedback (see O’Neill, [0105]).
As to claim 4, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
O’Neill and Adyanthaya teach:
wherein the machine-learning model was trained using transfer learning (see O’Neill, [0066]).
As to claim 5, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
O’Neill and Adyanthaya teach:
wherein the one or more keywords are generated by receiving data from the set of communication channels (see O’Neill, [0087], [0089]).
As to claim 6, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
O’Neill and Adyanthaya teach:
wherein the one or more recommended communication channels are further generated based on user data, wherein the user data includes at least a user profile associated with the user device (see O’Neill, [0088]).
As to claim 7, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
O’Neill and Adyanthaya teach:
wherein the one or more keywords comprises at least one of a song title, a song categorization, a topic of discussion, a subject matter, names of one or more hosts, original broadcast location of a media source, or title of programming (see O’Neill, [0229]).
Claims 9-14 correspond in scope to claims 2-7 and are similarly rejected.
Claims 16-20 correspond in scope to claims 2-6 and are similarly rejected.
Prior Arts
11. US 11936702, US 20230156058, US 2016329977, US 20240406237, US 12341836, US 20230155707, US 20160029056, US 20150264415, US 20230410130, US 8756101, US 20230410130, US 20220277324, US 20140289000, US 9197915, US 20140282717, these reference also read the claim recited limitation. These references are state of the art at the time of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
12. The examiner suggests, in response to this Office action, support being shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application because:
a. 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) requires antecedent basis in the Specification or original disclosure for any new language, including terms and phrases, added to the claims;
and because:
b. 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) requires the Drawings to illustrate or show all claimed features.
Applicant must clearly point out the patentable novelty that they think the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made, and must also explain how the amendments avoid the references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c).
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider each of the cited references in entirety
as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage disclosed by the examiner.
13. The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action (see MPEP § 7.96).
Contact Information
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Daniel A Kuddus whose telephone number is (571) 270-1722. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday 8.00 a.m.-5.30 p.m. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays from 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Boris Gorney can be reached on (571) 270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from the either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL A KUDDUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
10/16/25