DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed on August 14, 2026 for Continuation Application # 19/091,126 filed on March 26, 2025 in which claims 2-21 are presented for examination.
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 .
Status of claims
Claims 2-21 are pending, of which claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-7 and 12-17 are amended.
No claims are canceled.
No claims are newly added.
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.
Claim 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. because the claims are directed to an abstract idea; and because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al, 573 U.S. (2014). In determining whether the claims are subject matter eligible, the Examiner applies the 2019 USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidelines. (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, Jan. 7, 2019.)
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes - Claim 2-21 recite a method and apparatus respectively.
The analysis of claims 2 and 12 are as follows:
Step 2A, prong one:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
receiving a request to access content (recites mental process of receiving a request with pen and a paper to access content);
identifying, in a profile associated with the request, a preference for concise content (recites mental process of identifying a profile with pen and a paper with content preferences);
identifying a plurality of long form videos and a plurality of short form videos (recites mental process of identifying a plurality of videos with pen and a paper of various form of videos);
ranking, based at least in part on the plurality of scores indicated in the data structure, the plurality of short form videos higher than the plurality of long form videos in relation to the profile (recites mental process of ranking with pen and a paper of based on scores);
determining a display ordering based at least in part on the ranking (recites mental process of displaying with pen and a paper of ranking and ordering); and
generating, for display at a device associated with the profile, identifiers for the plurality of short form videos and identifiers for the plurality of long form videos based at least in part on the display ordering (recites mental process of display with pen and a paper of profiles and videos).
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
based at least in part on the preference in the profile, causing, in a data structure stored in memory, a plurality of scores to be associated with the plurality of long form videos and the plurality of short form videos (recites implementing the abstract idea on scoring a plurality of long form videos and plurality of short form videos the claim limitations in a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, as seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, scoring videos and storing them in memory.
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
A system comprising: memory; and control circuitry configured (recites implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer hardware which amounts to merely using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of ranking and scoring long and short form of videos, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, of ranking and scoring various form of videos.
The analysis of claims 3-11 and 13-21 are as follows:
Step 2A, prong one:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
Claims 3 and 13 recites wherein the preference for concise content is based at least in part on content length, wherein the content lengths of the plurality of long form video is greater than the content lengths of the plurality of short form videos (recites mental process of identifying a plurality of videos with pen and a paper of various form of videos).
Claims 4 and 14 recites wherein the request is received from the device, and wherein the display ordering causes the identifiers for the plurality of short form videos to be arranged at a top portion of a user interface of the device (recites mental process of arranging a plurality of videos with pen and a paper of various form of videos).
Claims 5 and 15 recites wherein the request is received from the device, and wherein the display ordering causes the identifiers for the plurality of short form videos to be arranged above the identifiers for the plurality of long form videos on a user interface of the device (recites mental process of arranging a plurality of videos with pen and a paper of various form of videos).
Claims 6 and 16 recites wherein the request is received from the device, and wherein the display ordering causes the identifiers for the plurality of short form videos to appear before the identifiers for the plurality of long form videos on a user interface of the device (recites mental process of displaying a plurality of videos with pen and a paper of various form of videos).
Claims 7 and 17 recites wherein the request is received from the device, and wherein the display ordering causes the identifiers for the plurality of short form videos and for the identifiers for the plurality of long form videos to each be arranged alphabetically on a user interface of the device (recites mental process of arranging a plurality of videos with pen and a paper of various form of videos).
Claims 8 and 18 recites determining a relevant portion for at least one video from the plurality of short form videos; and wherein generating for display the plurality of short form videos and the plurality of long form videos further comprises providing for display an indication of the relevant portion for the at least one video for display (recites mental process of displaying a plurality of videos with pen and a paper of various form of videos).
Claims 10 and 20 recites identifying a respective importance criterion for each respective additional preference of the one or more additional preferences, wherein the generating for display is further based on the respective importance criterion (recites mental process of displaying a plurality of videos with pen and a paper of various form of videos).
Claims 11 and 21 recites identifying the identifiers for the plurality of long form videos and the identifiers for the plurality of short form videos is based at least in part on one or more user selected interests in the profile associated with the request (recites mental process of identifying a plurality of videos with pen and a paper of various form of videos).
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
Claims 9 and 19 recites identifying, in the profile associated with the request, one or more additional preferences comprising a preference for summaries, a preference for positive reviews, or a preference for a type of job market, wherein determining the display ordering is further based on the one or more additional preferences (recites implementing the abstract idea on summaries, positive reviews and job market the claim limitations in a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, as seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, of ordering, ranking and scoring videos on preferences.
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
Claims 3-11
a computer implemented method, comprising (recites implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer hardware which amounts to merely using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of ranking, scoring and displaying various form of videos, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 13-21
A system comprising: memory; and control circuitry configured to (recites implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer hardware which amounts to merely using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of ranking, scoring and displaying various form of videos, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements merely recite, at a high-level of generality, of displaying videos based on scoring and ranking.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 14, 2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 2 and 12 are directed to the abstract idea of
receiving a request to access content (recites mental process of receiving a request with pen and a paper to access content);
identifying, in a profile associated with the request, a preference for concise content (recites mental process of identifying a profile with pen and a paper with content preferences);
identifying a plurality of long form videos and a plurality of short form videos (recites mental process of identifying a plurality of videos with pen and a paper of various form of videos);
ranking, based at least in part on the plurality of scores indicated in the data structure, the plurality of short form videos higher than the plurality of long form videos in relation to the profile (recites mental process of ranking with pen and a paper of based on scores);
determining a display ordering based at least in part on the ranking (recites mental process of displaying with pen and a paper of ranking and ordering); and
generating, for display at a device associated with the profile, identifiers for the plurality of short form videos and identifiers for the plurality of long form videos based at least in part on the display ordering (recites mental process of display with pen and a paper of profiles and videos).
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements such as executing said database statement includes based at least in part on the preference in the profile, causing, in a data structure stored in memory, a plurality of scores to be associated with the plurality of long form videos and the plurality of short form videos (recites implementing the abstract idea on scoring a plurality of long form videos and plurality of short form videos the claim limitations in a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 2 and 12 are directed to an abstract recited in the form of a generalized invention which can be performed in a human mind with a pencil and paper. The particular claimed elements which constitute the abstract idea include
receiving a request to access content (recites mental process of receiving a request with pen and a paper to access content);
identifying, in a profile associated with the request, a preference for concise content (recites mental process of identifying a profile with pen and a paper with content preferences);
identifying a plurality of long form videos and a plurality of short form videos (recites mental process of identifying a plurality of videos with pen and a paper of various form of videos);
ranking, based at least in part on the plurality of scores indicated in the data structure, the plurality of short form videos higher than the plurality of long form videos in relation to the profile (recites mental process of ranking with pen and a paper of based on scores);
determining a display ordering based at least in part on the ranking (recites mental process of displaying with pen and a paper of ranking and ordering); and
generating, for display at a device associated with the profile, identifiers for the plurality of short form videos and identifiers for the plurality of long form videos based at least in part on the display ordering (recites mental process of display with pen and a paper of profiles and videos). Mathematical relationships and algorithms have been found by the courts (e.g. Benson, Flook, Diehr, Grams) to be abstract ideas. For example, in Benson, a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another was found to be an exception, as was an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition in Grams. The concept described in claim 2 does not meaningfully differ from those found by the courts to constitute mathematical algorithms as scoring and ranking the long and short form of views stored in the memory.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Additional elements recited in the claim include the limitations: a computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform the method illustrating a displaying plurality of long and short form of videos based on scores and ranking. These limitations are directed to realizing the listing things on a paper with pen using human mind in an organized way using a computer system. Executing the using a model to rank is little more than a broad recitation of generic use of a computer (i.e., executing). Providing the executing database statement is at most insignificant post solution activity of long and short form video consists of a plurality of scores and ranking for display. The preamble's recitation of a "computer-readable storage medium" and a "computerized method" are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Further, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because merely providing a result and executing the algorithm by a computer is akin to adding the words “apply it” with a computer in conjunction with the abstract idea such as scoring and ranking the videos. Such limitations are not enough to add significantly more to the method of representing the videos ordering based on scores, which represent mathematical relationships and algorithms.
Considering all the limitations in combination, the claimed additional computer elements do not show any inventive concept in applying the mathematical operations, such as improving the performance of a computer or any other technology. The steps describe nothing more than a computer’s basic function of displaying consists of a plurality of long and short form videos, and do not meaningfully limit the performance of the calculation. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-21 are allowed over prior-art as the applicant is request to resolve 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The prior-art does not teach the limitation of “data structure stored in memory, a plurality of scores to be associated with the plurality of long form videos and the plurality of short form videos; ranking, based at least in part on the plurality of scores indicated in the data structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pub. US 2016/0217328 A1 disclose “IMAGE AND VIDEO PROCESSING AND OPTIMIZATION”
US Pub. US 2013/0013650 A1 disclose “VISUAL AND CONTEXT-ORIENTED CURATION PLATFORM”
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 PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3836. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F. 8am - 4pm, EST.
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, Ann J Lo can be reached on (571) 272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding 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 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.
/PAVAN MAMILLAPALLI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
