DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
Objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/09/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Previous Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 to Claim 28 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment filed on 08/13/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Previous Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 to claims 28-33 are maintained because the claims are directed to the abstract idea of evaluating gender-associated host-viewing information to provide broadcast recommendations, without an apparent claimed technical application or inventive concept beyond implementing that evaluation through servers. The claim still describes a mental process by identifying, in response to the request, live-stream information, the live-stream information indicating an average watch time of the gender for a host of a video content or a preference of the gender for the host; and providing the recommended broadcast list, based on the user information and the live-stream information.
At the breadth claimed, a person could review a small table of host-specific audience preferences, identify the entries for the user’s gender, and recommend corresponding broadcasts. For example, a person could consult records showing that viewers of that gender prefer Host A to Host B and recommend Host A’s broadcast.
The claim does not require a particular computational model, data volume, or processing deadline that would make that evaluation impractical mentally.
Considering the arrangements with the servers as a whole, the claim appears to improve which broadcasts are recommended, without specifying how computer operation, streaming delivery, network communication, or another technology is improved.
The distinction is not that software or recommendations can never be eligible. Rather, this claim specifies the information used and the desired recommendation, without an apparent technical mechanism producing a technological improvement.
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 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the computer-readable recording medium described open-ended language in the specification (see page 34). Regarding claims 29-33, while the computer readable medium is disclosed in the specification as a DVD, CD-ROM, floppy disk etc., its description is open-ended and allows for non-statutory embodiments such as signal or carrier wave under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The suggested claim language to obviate the rejection is “non-transitory computer readable recording medium”.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without reciting significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Statutory Category
The claims (claims 21 and 34) are directed to a method and system claims, which are statutory categories under 35 USC §101. However, the claims fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter under the subsequent steps of the Alice/Mayo framework and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guideline (“2019 PEG”).
Step 2A, Prong 1 (The claims are directed to an Abstract Idea).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claim recites limitations directed to collecting information (obtaining user information), receiving a request, analyzing information (identifying live-stream information indicating average watch time or preference), and providing a recommendation (providing a recommended broadcast list). These operations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe mental processes (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind) and certain methods of organizing human activity, such as targeted marketing and personalization. As such, the claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two (The claims do not integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application).
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim merely uses generic computer components to obtain, receive, identify, and provide information. The claim does not recite any improvement to computer functionality, any specific technological solution, any particular machine, or any transformation of data beyond mere analysis and presentation. The additional elements therefore do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B (The claims do not recite an Inventive Concept)
Under 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea consist of: generic data gathering, analysis, and presentation. The claims do not include any unconventional data sources, any specific algorithmic improvement, or any specialized hardware. Accordingly, the claim does not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Claim 22-27, 29-33 and 35-40 fail to remedy these deficiencies. Thus, claims 22-27, 29-33 and 35-40 are considered to be directed to non-statutory process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 24-25, 28, 30-31, 34, 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0336645) in view of Davies et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0364822) and further in view of Ortiz et al. (2020/0007934).
Regarding claim 21, Price discloses a method performed by a recommendation server, comprising (see paragraph 0074, fig. 1 (Live-stream recommendation engine, 150) and fig. 4):
obtaining, from a service server, user information including a gender of a user (see paragraphs 0037, 0050, 0065, 0076; User information may refer to information regarding or describing a user that accesses the content sharing platform 120. For example, user information 230D may include a user's age, gender, user history (e.g., previously watched media items), or affinities);
receiving, from the service server, a request for streaming content (see paragraph 0076, 0050; receiving a user-access indication); and
providing the recommended broadcast list, based on the user information and the live-stream information (see paragraphs 0076-0078; uses user and live-stream inputs to select multiple recommendations, including a top three example).
However, Price is silent as to identifying, in response to the request, live-stream information, the live-stream information indicating an average watch time of the gender for a host of a broadcast or a preference of the gender for the host.
In an analogous art, Davies et al. discloses identifying, in response to the request, live-stream information, the live-stream information indicating an average watch time of the gender for a host of a video content or a preference of the gender for the host (see paragraphs 0032-0035, fig. 3; viewing data grouped by gender: the example averages are approximately 27 seconds for female viewers and 91 seconds for male viewers. Paragraph 0030 identifies matching demographic metrics in response to a content request. Those examples concern video content, not expressly a live broadcast host).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Price with the teachings of Davies et al., the motivation being to separate that metric by gender by permitting the recommendation to reflect the requesting viewer’s demographic group rather than an undifferentiated audience average.
However, Price and Davies et al. are silent as to supplying the broadcaster-specific context.
Ortiz supplies the broadcaster-specific context (see paragraphs 0127-0131; streaming broadcasters, audience statistics, and audience demographics including gender. Paragraphs 0132-0133; audience sentiment toward individual broadcasters. Paragraphs 0137-0139; broadcaster performance information and audience cohorts).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Price and Davies et al. with the teachings of Ortiz, the motivation being to improve selection of currently available broadcasts by using demonstrated audience engagement with their hosts.
NOTE: The USPTO considers the applicant’s “or” language to be anticipated by any reference containing any of the subsequent corresponding elements of “the live-stream information indicating an average watch time of the gender for a host of a broadcast or a preference of the gender for the host”.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claims 24, 30 and 37, Price, Davies et al. and Ortiz discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21, 28 and 34). Price discloses wherein the live-stream information includes at least one of a thumbnail image regarding the broadcast or an image captured from a broadcast screen corresponding to the broadcast (see paragraph 0045).
Regarding claims 25, 31 and 38, Price, Davies et al. and Ortiz discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21, 28 and 34). Davies et al. discloses wherein the user information includes at least one of host identification information of a broadcasting that the user watched, a number of views, or a watch time (see paragraphs 0005, 0029, 0034, fig. 3).
Claims 22, 29 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price, Davies et al. and Ortiz as applied to claims 21, 28 and 34 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0141521).
Regarding claims 22, 29 and 35, Price, Davies et al. and Ortiz discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21, 28 and 34). However, Price, Davies et al. and Ortiz are silent as to wherein the user information includes gift data including identification information of the host and a description of a gift.
Lin et al. discloses wherein the user information includes gift data including identification information of the host and a description of a gift (see paragraphs 0086, 0090-0091, 0114-0118).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Price, Davies et al. and Ortiz with the teachings of Lin et al., the motivation being to support a streamer.
Claims 23, 26-27, 32-33, 36 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price, Davies et al. and Ortiz as applied to claims 21, 28 and 34 above, and further in view of Kumar et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0061286).
Regarding claims 23 and 36, Price, Davies et al. and Ortiz discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21 and 34).
However, Price, Davies et al. and Ortiz are silent as to transmitting a request for the user information, wherein the request comprises identification information on the user, and the user information includes the identification information.
Kumar et al. discloses transmitting a request for the user information, wherein the request comprises identification information on the user, and the user information includes the identification information (see paragraphs 0031-0032, 0060, 0064, 0123).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Price, Davies et al. and Ortiz with the teachings of Kumar et al., the motivation being to enable the service server to select the intended user’s record.
Regarding claims 26, 32 and 39, Price, Davies et al. and Ortiz discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21, 28 and 34).
However, Price, Davies et al. and Ortiz are silent as to obtaining host information, wherein the recommended broadcast list is based on the host information.
Kumar et al. discloses obtaining host information, wherein the recommended broadcast list is based on the host information (see paragraphs 0068, 0128, 0131-0132).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Price, Davies et al. and Ortiz with the teachings of Kumar et al., the motivation being to enable the service server to select the intended user’s record.
Regarding claims 27, 33 and 40, Price, Davies et al. and Ortiz discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 26, 32 and 39).
However, Price, Davies et al. and Ortiz are silent as to wherein the host information includes at least one of identification information of the host.
Kumar et al. discloses wherein the host information includes at least one of identification information of the host (see paragraph 0068; name of a creator).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Price, Davies et al. and Ortiz with the teachings of Kumar et al., the motivation being to enable the service server to select the intended user’s record.
Conclusion
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 NNENNA NGOZI EKPO whose telephone number is (571)270-1663. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 10:00am - 6:30pm, TH-F 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
NNENNA EKPO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/NNENNA N EKPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425 September 22, 2026.
Prosecution Insights