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 Amendment
This office action is responsive to an amendment filed on 6/12/2026. Claims 1,4, 15, 18, and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 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 1-20 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 1 is drawn to method, claim 15 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim 20 drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
Step 2A, Prong One: The claims are directed to facilitating interactions between a user and an agent through a multimedia interface. The claims steps include: determining an object to be called based on the multimedia content according to semantic information of the multimedia content, wherein the semantic information of the multimedia content is obtained by processing the multimedia content using a machine learning model, and the object to be called is an agent or a sub-application; displaying, in response to the object to be called being the agent, a message sent from the agent through a message control in the playing interface, wherein the message is generated according to the semantic information of the multimedia content; and displaying a conversation interface between the user and the agent in response to a trigger operation of the user on the message control, wherein the conversation interface comprises an input control for obtaining relevant information about the multimedia content from the agent, the playing interface further comprises an input control for sending a message from the user, and the multimedia content is content in a recommendation stream of multimedia content.
These steps describe activities that are abstract in nature and fall into the t least one categories of Mental Processes (determining user intent or multimedia understanding), presentation of information (displaying messages or conversation interfaces), Certain methods of or organizing human activity (managing user engagement through recommendation system or dialog flows). These claims do not recite any specific improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology and instead recite an abstract idea for managing digital content and agent interaction using generic computer functions. Dependent claims (2-14 and 16-19) recite additional information processing or user interface customization steps but do not add meaningful limitations that would change the conclusion of abstraction. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to abstract idea.
Step 2A- Prong Two: The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The steps are implemented on a generic computing system using conventional user interface (message control, input control dialog box). The claims do not recite any specific improvement to computer technology or user interface. The multimedia content analysis and agent selection are described functionally, not tied to any novel or technological implementation. There is no indication that the claims provide technological benefit or solves a technical problem in a novel way.
Step 2B: the additional elements, analyzed individually or in combination, do not add an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application. The plying interface, input control and message control are generic graphical user interface elements. The understanding of multimedia content is claimed broadly with no specific algorithm or technical implementation recited. The claimed steps are performed using routine and conventional activities. Therefore, claims 1-20 do not recite an inventive step. Th claims are directed to abstract idea and do not include additional element s that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue the amended claims filed on 12/11/2025 regarding 35 USC § 101 are patent eligible and request the withdrawal of the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but do not overcome the 101 rejections, The amended claims still describe analyzing multimedia content with machine-learning model, classifying that content and selecting an agent or sub-application, generating a message based on that classification, and displaying the message and a conversation interface. These steps amount to processing information and presenting information, which courts have consistently treated as abstract ideas. The claims do not recite any improvement to how the computer, the user interface the multimedia system, or the machine-learning model operates. Instead, they describe using known computer components in their ordinary roles to deliver content-based messages to users. Assertions that the method guides users, improves efficiency, or optimizes interaction, reflect enhancements to user experience, is not technical improvements to computer functionality. Because the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical technical application and do not add an inventive concept beyond routine information processing and display, the rejection is maintained.
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