DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is in reply to the application filed on 04/28/2025, and the subsequent preliminary amendment filed on 08/08/2025.
Claim 52 has been amended.
Claims 53-71 have been added.
Claims 1-51 have been canceled.
Claims 52-71 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 52-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 52 (representative of claim 62):
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following:
receiving, from a user device over a time period, a first plurality of time-stamped indicators associated with a first content item, wherein each of the first plurality of time-stamped indicators corresponds to a respective user action of a plurality of user actions of a user with respect to the first content item over the time period; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations by providing recommendations for content items to users)
clustering, using a computer-based learning model, a plurality of users into a user group such that the plurality of users will have been clustered by user preferences for a plurality of characteristics of a plurality of content items, wherein the user group is associated with a second plurality of time-stamped indicators associated with the plurality of content items; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations by providing recommendations for content items to users)
determining a level of similarity between the first plurality of time-stamped indicators associated with the user and the second plurality of time-stamped indicators associated with the user group; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations by providing recommendations for content items to users)
assigning the user to the user group based at least in part on the determined level of similarity: (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations by providing recommendations for content items to users)
identifying a characteristic from the plurality of characteristics associated with the user group; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations by providing recommendations for content items to users)
identifying a second content item associated with the identified characteristic; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations by providing recommendations for content items to users)
providing, to the user device, a recommendation for the second content item. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations by providing recommendations for content items to users)
Additional dependent claims 53-61 and 63-71 do not appear remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claim 1 (representative of claim 62):
…a user device
…a system
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed to a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 52-71 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,270,342 B2, hereinafter the ‘342 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Each of the ‘342 patent as well as this presently claimed invention are directed towards systems and methods for deducing user information from input device behavior. To this end, both of these inventions utilized time-stamped user characteristics in a learning model. However, the invention of the instant application specifies clustering of users. Additionally, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-16 of the ‘342 patent. recite:
receiving data that identifies:
quantity of user interactions with a first media asset for a group of users, and (b) elapsed time between the user interactions with the first media asset for the group of users;
determining an inactivity threshold for the first media asset based on a) the quantity of the user interactions with the first media asset for the group of users, and (b) the elapsed time between the user interactions with the first media asset for the group of users;
receiving a plurality of time-stamped indicators from a media device, wherein each of the plurality of time-stamped indicators is associated with a corresponding action performed by a user with the media device with respect to the first media asset that is being generated for display;
identifying, based on the plurality of time-stamped indicators and the corresponding user action, periods of user activity and inactivity with respect to the first media asset by comparing frequency of plurality of time-stamped indicators to the inactivity threshold;
determining based on the identified periods of user activity and inactivity whether the user prefers the first media asset, wherein determining whether the user prefers the first media asset further comprises:
determining a behavior pattern of the user based on the plurality of time-stamped indicators received from the media device, wherein determining the behavior pattern of the user further comprises:
calculating a number of time-stamped indicators received over a period of time;
calculating a speed of the user action corresponding to each of the time-stamped indicators received over the period of time;
determining a type of the user action corresponding to each of the time-stamped indicators received over the period of time;
determining the behavior pattern based at least in part on the number of time-stamped indicators, the speed of the user action corresponding to each of the time-stamped indicators, and the type of the user action corresponding to each of the time-stamped indicators;
determining that the behavior pattern indicates a user preference for the characteristic of the first media asset;
in response to determining that the user prefers the first media asset:
retrieving a characteristic of the first media asset;
determining that the characteristic of the first media asset matches a first characteristic associated with a user group among the group of users that is associated with a plurality of predetermined media preferences;
in response to determining that the characteristic of the first media asset matches the first characteristic associated with the user group, adding the user into the user group;
retrieving a second characteristic associated with the user group;
retrieving a second media asset having the second characteristic;
generating for display, to the user, a media asset recommendation of the second media asset.
Claims 52-71 of this instant application differ since it further recites additional claim limitations including:
clustering, using a computer-based learning model, a plurality of users into a user group such that the plurality of users will have been clustered by user preferences for a plurality of characteristics of a plurality of content items, wherein the user group is associated with a second plurality of time-stamped indicators associated with the plurality of content items.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claims of the ‘342 patent by removing the limitations directed to activity and inactivity of the user behavioral characteristics resulting generally in the claims of the present application since the claims of the present application and the claims recited in the ‘342 patent actually perform a similar function. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, RAMER et al. (USPGP 2011/0258049 A1) in at least paragraph 1151 teaches, “In embodiments, query clustering may include processing and summarizing of a user's query stream for analysis and inclusion into the user profile. The PMP may leverage the monetization platform's search experience and technology to provide advanced query analytics. The query clustering component may be responsible for grouping similar queries to allow for eventual categorization. The clustering component may rely on proven search tools to group similar terms and concepts based on historical analysis of millions of user searches. Spell correction technology may be used to correct queries prior to categorization.” Subsequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of the RAMER et al. with the technique of this instant application because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
In this case, the limitation as claimed by the invention is merely an improvement over a base device, product, or method as taught by the references. The specifications also teach a comparable device improved in the same way. The technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way and the result of the improvement is predictable. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of the ‘342 patent with the technique of this instant application because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
Haiyang Zheng. “RSIO: Automatic User Interaction Detection and Scheduling.” (2010). Retrieved online 04/22/2021. https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~nieh/pubs/sigmetrics2010_rsio.pdf
“We present RSIO, a processor scheduling framework for improving the response time of latency-sensitive applications by monitoring accesses to I/O channels and inferring when user interactions occur. RSIO automatically identifies processes involved in a user interaction and boosts their priorities at the time the interaction occurs to improve system response time. RSIO also detects processes indirectly involved in processing an interaction, automatically accounting for dependencies and boosting their priorities accordingly. RSIO works with existing schedulers and requires no application modifications to identify periods of latency sensitive application activity. We have implemented RSIO in Linux and measured its effectiveness on micro benchmarks and real applications. Our results show that RSIO is easy to use and can provide substantial improvements in system performance for latency-sensitive applications.”
Mick P Couper. “Engagement and Retention: Measuring Breadth and Depth of Participant Use of an Online Intervention.” (2010 Nov 18). Retrieved online 30 November 2023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056524/
Foreign Art:
YAMAHARA, HIROYUKI et al. (JP 2008/097472 A). “To provide a system and method for detecting complex human behaviors with high accuracy. The system is provided with a plurality of RFID tags prepared for each of a plurality of objects existing in a space, a mobile apparatus carried by a user moving the space, and a processing part for applying processing on receipt of information of the RFID tag from the mobile apparatus. The processing part stores behavior patterns corresponding to behaviors of a user in advance, counts the number of times that order pairs (characteristics) in the behavior pattern are included in a behavior log of the user, calculates a characteristic point on the basis of the number of the times, and compares the characteristic point with a threshold to detect a specific behavior corresponding to the behavior pattern.”
ISHII, HISAHARU et al. (JP 2010/198493 A). “To prevent the reduction of a satisfaction degree of a user with respect to information to be provided. A purpose definitude degree estimating part 14 obtains the purpose definitude degree of the user at the present time by estimating the domain and category of the user at the present time, based on a behavior log. When the purpose definitude degree is equal to or more than a threshold, a behavior purpose estimating part 16 estimates the behavior purpose of the user at the present time, based on the behavior log. A purpose base information extracting part 17 extracts purpose base information, based on the estimated behavior purpose. An information selecting part 15 provides the purpose base information to an applicable user terminal. When the purpose definitude degree is less than the threshold, a user attribute estimating part 18 estimates the user attribute of the user, based on the behavior log. An attribute base information extracting part 19 extract attribute base information, based on the estimated user information. The information selecting part 15 provides the attribute base information to the applicable user terminal.
FUKUMOTO, YASUTAKA et al. (JP 2010/198595 A). “To provide a new and improved information processing apparatus, an information processing method, and a program to accurately recognize each user's behavior. The information processing apparatus has: a sensor data generating part which generates sensor data corresponding to the user behavior; a behavior recognizing part which performs a predetermined threshold value process on the sensor data to recognize the behavior exhibited by the user and generates behavior information that is information indicating the behavior exhibited by the user; a behavior management part which manages the behavior information generated by the behavior recognizing part in correspondence with the time point at which the behavior corresponding to the behavior information is exhibited; and a behavior information post-processing part which performs a predetermined post-process on the behavior information managed by the behavior manager, wherein the behavior recognizing part further includes a plurality of behavior determination parts specified to specific behaviors exhibited by the user and generates the behavior information based on the determination results of the plurality of behavior determination parts.”
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)
Prosecution Insights