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 .
Response to Arguments
This office action is responsive to amend filed on 2/27/2026. Claims 1-5, 8, 12-18 and 20 are amended. Claims 21 is newly added. Claims 1-5, 8-21 are pending examination.
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 1-5, and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 is drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 14 is drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim 20 is drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 14, and 20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 1: The claims are directed to abstract idea of collecting, analyzing and displaying data in the context of recommending multimedia content to a user based on historical interactions with agents. The claims recite displaying, in the conversation interface between the user and the first agent, a first message sent from the agent to the user and a first preview control of a first multimedia content corresponding to the first message, wherein the first preview control is a first entry of the recommendation stream of multimedia content, the first message is a reply to a message sent from the user; displaying a playing interface of the recommendation stream in response to a trigger operation on the first entry; determining , a multimedia content recommended for the user based on historical interaction data authorized by a user between the user and at least one of the first agent or an agent different from the first agent, wherein the historical interaction data authorized by the user comprises at least one of an attribute or a type; and displaying the multimedia content recommended for the user in a playing interface of the recommendation stream, wherein the first multimedia content is comprised in the multimedia content recommended for the user. (e.g., organizing human activity and information filtering), as it could be performed mentally or with pen and paper (see Electric Power Group v. Alstom S.A, 830 F. 3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2, the claims do not include additional elements to amount significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements such as” displaying a playing interface”, “determining multimedia content”, “extracting key information”, and trigger operations” amount to nothing more than generic computer functionality used to perform routine data processing and content display. There is no indication that the claimed invention improves the computer functionality or effects a transformation of data in any meaningful or unconventional way. The steps are performed in a conventional sequence using standard components and fail to impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. No inventive concept is recited that transforms the claims into patent eligible application. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding filed regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that independent claim recites concrete interactive technology (displaying a user message; displaying an agent reply with a dedicated preview control reacting to trigger operations, and switching content) which represent specific human-device communication behavior rather than data processing.
Response. This argument is not persuasive. The specification states that the “trigger on the first entrance includes, for example, a click operation, a slide operation and the like”, and that the user switches media content by “sliding up and sliding down””. These display behavior and navigation techniques represent completely well understood, routine and conventional computer mechanisms for navigating data on a terminal screen. Under federal case Law (Apple Inc. v, Ameranth,Inc), formatting , manipulating , and displaying menus or content streams based on user data is an abstract concept when executed via conventional user interface inputs. Independent claim 1 does not alter how a terminal application processes a touch or a click event, nor does it structurally modify the display device itself. It only uses conventional interaction tools such as clicking and sliding as a pipeline to execute the abstract practice fo content recommendation. Therefore, these interface interactions do not add an inventive concept to the abstract idea.
The applicant argues that Electric Power Group v. Alstom S.A. should not apply because that case involved only basic data collection and display, while the current invention uses several interactive navigation tools.
Response, this argument is not persuasive. Even though Electric Power Group dealt with passive monitoring system, the legal rule form that case still applies to the interactive software. Collecting information, analyzing it, and showing the result is still an abstract idea, even if the user interacts with the interface. A case that fits the current situation more closely is Affinity Labs V. Amazon (2016). IN that case, the claims involved giving users customized audio content based on their choices through graphical interface. The court said that using normal interactive features on a standard computer does not make an abstract idea into a patent eligible invention. Here, the applicant’s “interactive features” are simply routine steps for gathering user input and delivering processed information (the recommendation stream). The fact that the system uses user navigation does not turn an abstract information filtering into a technical improvement.
The applicant argues the invention makes recommendations more accurate and efficient. The applicant further argues that this solves a technical problem related to how computer interfaces work and how users interact with them. Because of this, the applicant believes the invention should count as “significantly more” under the patent rule.
Response. The examiner disagrees. The claim does not actually describe any real technical improvement. To count as a technological improvement under the law, the claim must explain how the computer or network is improved, such as a new data structure or a new way the system operates internally. But independent claim 1 states a result, which is a recommendation is determined based on historical interaction data. The claim never explains how the model or system is built or configured to achieve better accuracy or efficiency. The specification also says the “agent” can simply be a standard Large Language model or Foundation Model, and the recommendation process is described as normal preference mapping. Making recommendations more convenient or more accurate is a business r informational benefit, not a technical one. Since the claim treats the model and processor as generic components doing ordinary data processing It does not include an inventive concept under Alice step 2B.
The examiner notes the addition of new depend claim 21. The applicant pointed to paragraph 0038 of the original filling. However, claim 21 is still rejected under 101, just like parent claim 4. Claim 21 only narrows the type of data being retrieved by specifying that it is an “attribute or type”. But limiting an abstract idea to a smaller category of data does not add anything inventive. It does not turn the claim into a technical solution under Alice Step 2B. It simply restricts the data being used, which is still abstract idea.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights