DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 19/229377 filed on June 16, 2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant
3. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner in hopes of reaching a resolution in light of compact prosecution
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
On Pg. 7-8 of remarks in regard to 35 U.S. 101, relating to claim 1, Applicant argues the amended claim as a whole does not reflect a mental process.
Examiner responds the claim contains a mental process. "collect user content from one or more sources based on one or more collection parameters” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping data, “organize the collected user content for optimization” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally picking criteria used to group media content. The amended claim limitation is seen as an additional element. The element is based upon accessing information to retrieve data. This is seen as identifying images, using machine learning to identify probabilities and tags for the images, and then associate the tags, probabilities with the images. For example, “perform tagging of the organized user content, including determining at least one user content image from the organized user content, identifying at least one product in the at least one user content image using at least one artificial intelligence model, identifying plural tags to be associated with the at least one user content image and probability of each of the plural tags to be associated with the at least one product based on the at least one artificial intelligence model, associating the plural tags and the probability of each of the plural tags with the at least one product in the at least one user content image, and generating a tagged image comprising the at least one product based on at least one of the plural tags and the probability of the at least one of the plural tags” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
On Pg. 10 of remarks in regard to 35 U.S.C. 101, relating to claim 1, Applicant argues “Considered as an ordered combination, the independent claims apply artificial intelligence models to identify products in user content images, generate probability-based tag associations for those products, associate the tags and probabilities with the products, and generate tagged images for optimized dynamic content provisioning. This ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea and provides the type of computer-implemented technological solution recognized as patent eligible under the Alice/Mayo framework”.
Examiner replies that the ordered combination is not significantly more to overcome the rejection. The claim recites organizing user content, receiving rights management, performing tagging of the content and then using machine learning to identify a plurality of tags that can applied to the items. This is similar to human tagging many items and then over time identify patterns with certain items and using similar tags.
Pg. 10-15 of remarks in regard to 35 U.S. 103, relating to claim 1, Applicant argues the new claims and the amended limitations.
A new reference is produced to teach the new claims and amended limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §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.
4. Claims 1-17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 1, specifically claim 1 recites "collect user content from one or more sources based on one or more collection parameters” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping data, “organize the collected user content for optimization” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally picking criteria used to group media content. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a user receiving content, grouping the content and deciding the best way to display to the content based on user criteria. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 1 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “receive rights management data for the organized user content” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For example, “perform tagging of the organized user content, including determining at least one user content image from the organized user content, identifying at least one product in the at least one user content image using at least one artificial intelligence model, identifying plural tags to be associated with the at least one user content image and probability of each of the plural tags to be associated with the at least one product based on the at least one artificial intelligence model, associating the plural tags and the probability of each of the plural tags with the at least one product in the at least one user content image, and generating a tagged image comprising the at least one product based on at least one of the plural tags and the probability of the at least one of the plural tags” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example, “and generate an optimized display representation of tagged user content on an output interface for dynamic content provisioning” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “receive rights management data for the organized user content”, “performing tagging of the organized user content, including determining at least one user content image from the organized user content, identifying at least one product in the at least one user content image using at least one artificial intelligence model, identifying plural tags to be associated with the at least one user content image and probability of each of the plural tags to be associated with the at least one product based on the at least one artificial intelligence model, associating the plural tags and the probability of each of the plural tags with the at least one product in the at least one user content image, and generating a tagged image comprising the at least one product based on at least one of the plural tags and the probability of the at least one of the plural tags”, “and generate an optimized display representation of tagged user content on an output interface for dynamic content provisioning”
For example, “receive rights management data for the organized user content”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, perform tagging of the organized user content, including determining at least one user content image from the organized user content, identifying at least one product in the at least one user content image using at least one artificial intelligence model, identifying plural tags to be associated with the at least one user content image and probability of each of the plural tags to be associated with the at least one product based on the at least one artificial intelligence model, associating the plural tags and the probability of each of the plural tags with the at least one product in the at least one user content image, and generating a tagged image comprising the at least one product based on at least one of the plural tags and the probability of the at least one of the plural tags” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “and generate an optimized display representation of tagged user content on an output interface for dynamic content provisioning” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 2, specifically claim 2 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 2 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to collect interaction data for the displayed user content for enhancing the dynamic content provisioning” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to collect interaction data for the displayed user content for enhancing the dynamic content provisioning”.
For example, “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to collect interaction data for the displayed user content for enhancing the dynamic content provisioning”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 3, specifically claim 3 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 3 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the optimized display representation is an optimal order of the tagged user content and cosmetic rendering of the tagged user content” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the optimized display representation is an optimal order of the tagged user content and cosmetic rendering of the tagged user content”.
For example, “wherein the optimized display representation is an optimal order of the tagged user content and cosmetic rendering of the tagged user content”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 4, specifically claim 4 recites "determine a goal for optimization of display representation”, “determine grouping criteria for grouping of the user content into a media album” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally picking criteria used to group media content, “determine search criteria for collecting the user content” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally picking criteria used to search and retrieve data, “organize the collected user content for optimization” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally picking criteria used to group media content. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a user receiving content, grouping the content and deciding the best way to display to the content based on user criteria. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 4 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “select the user content from the one or more sources based on the search criteria organize the selected user content in the media album based on the goal for optimization of the display representation and the grouping criteria” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “select the user content from the one or more sources based on the search criteria organize the selected user content in the media album based on the goal for optimization of the display representation and the grouping criteria”
For example, “select the user content from the one or more sources based on the search criteria organize the selected user content in the media album based on the goal for optimization of the display representation and the grouping criteria” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 5, specifically claim 5 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 5 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the media album comprises one or more of a photo album, a video album, and a text album” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the media album comprises one or more of a photo album, a video album, and a text album”.
For example, “wherein the media album comprises one or more of a photo album, a video album, and a text album”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 6, specifically claim 6 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 6 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the search criteria comprises one or more of user preference, content rating, content type, content category, product type, and user type” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the search criteria comprises one or more of user preference, content rating, content type, content category, product type, and user type”.
For example, “wherein the search criteria comprises one or more of user preference, content rating, content type, content category, product type, and user type”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 7, specifically claim 7 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 7 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein to organize the collected user content for optimization, the at least one processor is further configured to process the user content based on one or more predefined content properties using an artificial intelligence model” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein to organize the collected user content for optimization, the at least one processor is further configured to process the user content based on one or more predefined content properties using an artificial intelligence model”.
For example, “wherein to organize the collected user content for optimization, the at least one processor is further configured to process the user content based on one or more predefined content properties using an artificial intelligence model”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 8, specifically claim 8 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 8 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the at least one processor performs the tagging of the organized user content using computer vision assisted tagging algorithm and natural language processing algorithm” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the at least one processor performs the tagging of the organized user content using computer vision assisted tagging algorithm and natural language processing algorithm”.
For example, “wherein the at least one processor performs the tagging of the organized user content using computer vision assisted tagging algorithm and natural language processing algorithm”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 9, specifically claim 9 recites "collecting user content from one or more sources based on one or more collection parameters” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping data, “organizing the collected user content for optimization” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally picking criteria used to group media content. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a user receiving content, grouping the content and deciding the best way to display to the content based on user criteria. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 9 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “receiving rights management data for the organized user content” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For example, “perform tagging of the organized user content, including determining at least one user content image from the organized user content, identifying at least one product in the at least one user content image using at least one artificial intelligence model, identifying plural tags to be associated with the at least one user content image and probability of each of the plural tags to be associated with the at least one product based on the at least one artificial intelligence model, associating the plural tags and the probability of each of the plural tags with the at least one product in the at least one user content image, and generating a tagged image comprising the at least one product based on at least one of the plural tags and the probability of the at least one of the plural tags” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example, “and generating an optimized display representation of tagged user content on an output interface for dynamic content provisioning” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “receiving rights management data for the organized user content”, “performing tagging of the organized user content, including determining at least one user content image from the organized user content, identifying at least one product in the at least one user content image using at least one artificial intelligence model, identifying plural tags to be associated with the at least one user content image and probability of each of the plural tags to be associated with the at least one product based on the at least one artificial intelligence model, associating the plural tags and the probability of each of the plural tags with the at least one product in the at least one user content image, and generating a tagged image comprising the at least one product based on at least one of the plural tags and the probability of the at least one of the plural tags”, “and generate an optimized display representation of tagged user content on an output interface for dynamic content provisioning”
For example, “receiving rights management data for the organized user content”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, perform tagging of the organized user content, including determining at least one user content image from the organized user content, identifying at least one product in the at least one user content image using at least one artificial intelligence model, identifying plural tags to be associated with the at least one user content image and probability of each of the plural tags to be associated with the at least one product based on the at least one artificial intelligence model, associating the plural tags and the probability of each of the plural tags with the at least one product in the at least one user content image, and generating a tagged image comprising the at least one product based on at least one of the plural tags and the probability of the at least one of the plural tags” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “and generating an optimized display representation of tagged user content on an output interface for dynamic content provisioning” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 10, specifically claim 10 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 10 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to collect interaction data for the displayed user content for enhancing the dynamic content provisioning” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “further comprising collecting interaction data for the displayed user content for enhancing the dynamic content provisioning”.
For example, “further comprising collecting interaction data for the displayed user content for enhancing the dynamic content provisioning”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 11, specifically claim 11 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 11 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the optimized display representation is an optimal order of the tagged user content and cosmetic rendering of the tagged user content” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the optimized display representation is an optimal order of the tagged user content and cosmetic rendering of the tagged user content”.
For example, “wherein the optimized display representation is an optimal order of the tagged user content and cosmetic rendering of the tagged user content”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 12, specifically claim 12 recites "determining a goal for optimization of display representation”, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally picking criteria used display content, “determining grouping criteria for grouping of the user content into a media album” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally picking criteria used to group media content, “determining search criteria for collecting the user content” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally picking criteria used to search and retrieve data, “organizing the collected user content for optimization” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally picking criteria used to group media content. “selecting the user content from the one or more sources based on the search criteria” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally picking criteria used to group media content. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a user receiving content, grouping the content and deciding the best way to display to the content based on user criteria. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 12 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “organizing the selected user content in the media album based on the goal for optimization of the display representation and the grouping criteria” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “organizing the selected user content in the media album based on the goal for optimization of the display representation and the grouping criteria”
For example, “organizing the selected user content in the media album based on the goal for optimization of the display representation and the grouping criteria” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 13, specifically claim 13 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 13 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the media album comprises one or more of a photo album, a video album, and a text album” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the media album comprises one or more of a photo album, a video album, and a text album”.
For example, “wherein the media album comprises one or more of a photo album, a video album, and a text album”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 14, specifically claim 14 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 14 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the search criteria comprises one or more of user preference, content rating, content type, content category, product type, and user type” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the search criteria comprises one or more of user preference, content rating, content type, content category, product type, and user type”.
For example, “wherein the search criteria comprises one or more of user preference, content rating, content type, content category, product type, and user type”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 15, specifically claim 15 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 15 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein organizing the collected user content for optimization further comprises processing the user content based on one or more predefined content properties using an artificial intelligence model” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein organizing the collected user content for optimization further comprises processing the user content based on one or more predefined content properties using an artificial intelligence model”.
For example, “wherein organizing the collected user content for optimization further comprises processing the user content based on one or more predefined content properties using an artificial intelligence model”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 16, specifically claim 16 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 16 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein tagging of the organized user content is performed using comprises computer vision assisted tagging algorithm and natural language processing algorithm” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein tagging of the organized user content is performed using comprises computer vision assisted tagging algorithm and natural language processing algorithm”.
For example, “wherein tagging of the organized user content is performed using comprises computer vision assisted tagging algorithm and natural language processing algorithm”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 17, specifically claim 17 recites "collecting user content from one or more sources based on one or more collection parameters” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping data, “organizing the collected user content for optimization” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally picking criteria used to group media content,
“performing tagging of the organized user content”. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a user receiving content, grouping the content and deciding the best way to display to the content based on user criteria. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 17 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “receiving rights management data for the organized user content” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For example, “and generating an optimized display representation of tagged user content on an output interface for dynamic content provisioning” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “receiving rights management data for the organized user content”, “and generate an optimized display representation of tagged user content on an output interface for dynamic content provisioning”
For example, “receiving rights management data for the organized user content”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, “and generating an optimized display representation of tagged user content on an output interface for dynamic content provisioning” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 18, specifically claim 18 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 18 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome that is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology:
For example, “wherein the operations further comprise collecting interaction data for the displayed user content for enhancing the dynamic content provisioning” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the operations further comprise collecting interaction data for the displayed user content for enhancing the dynamic content provisioning”.
For example, “wherein the operations further comprise collecting interaction data for the displayed user content for enhancing the dynamic content provisioning”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer program product.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 17, specifically claim 17 recites "collecting user content from one or more sources based on one or more collection parameters” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping data, “organizing the collected user content for optimization” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally picking criteria used to group media content. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a user receiving content, grouping the content and deciding the best way to display to the content based on user criteria. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 17 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “receiving rights management data for the organized user content” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For example, “performing tagging of the organized user content, including determining at least one user content image from the organized user content, identifying at least one product in the at least one user content image using at least one artificial intelligence model, identifying plural tags to be associated with the at least one user content image and probability of each of the plural tags to be associated with the at least one product based on the at least one artificial intelligence model, associating the plural tags and the probability of each of the plural tags with the at least one product in the at least one user content image, and generating a tagged image comprising the at least one product based on at least one of the plural tags and the probability of the at least one of the plural tags” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example, “and generating an optimized display representation of tagged user content on an output interface for dynamic content provisioning” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “receiving rights management data for the organized user content”, “performing tagging of the organized user content, including determining at least one user content image from the organized user content, identifying at least one product in the at least one user content image using at least one artificial intelligence model, identifying plural tags to be associated with the at least one user content image and probability of each of the plural tags to be associated with the at least one product based on the at least one artificial intelligence model, associating the plural tags and the probability of each of the plural tags with the at least one product in the at least one user content image, and generating a tagged image comprising the at least one product based on at least one of the plural tags and the probability of the at least one of the plural tags”, “and generate an optimized display representation of tagged user content on an output interface for dynamic content provisioning”
For example, “receiving rights management data for the organized user content”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
For example, performing tagging of the organized user content, including determining at least one user content image from the organized user content, identifying at least one product in the at least one user content image using at least one artificial intelligence model, identifying plural tags to be associated with the at least one user content image and probability of each of the plural tags to be associated with the at least one product based on the at least one artificial intelligence model, associating the plural tags and the probability of each of the plural tags with the at least one product in the at least one user content image, and generating a tagged image comprising the at least one product based on at least one of the plural tags and the probability of the at least one of the plural tags” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
For example, “and generate an optimized display representation of tagged user content on an output interface for dynamic content provisioning” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 21, specifically claim 21 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
For example, “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate plural categories of the user content based on categorization criteria, provide the plural categories of the user content to the at least one artificial intelligence model, associate a score with each of the plural categories of the user content using the at least one artificial intelligence model, generate a rank for each of the plural categories of the user content based on the score associated with each of the plural categories of the user content, and dynamically update the rank and the score using a multi-armed bandit algorithm” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate plural categories of the user content based on categorization criteria, provide the plural categories of the user content to the at least one artificial intelligence model, associate a score with each of the plural categories of the user content using the at least one artificial intelligence model, generate a rank for each of the plural categories of the user content based on the score associated with each of the plural categories of the user content, and dynamically update the rank and the score using a multi-armed bandit algorithm”.
For example, “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate plural categories of the user content based on categorization criteria, provide the plural categories of the user content to the at least one artificial intelligence model, associate a score with each of the plural categories of the user content using the at least one artificial intelligence model, generate a rank for each of the plural categories of the user content based on the score associated with each of the plural categories of the user content, and dynamically update the rank and the score using a multi-armed bandit algorithm”, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 22, specifically claim 22 recites no new abstract ideas
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
For example, “identifying the at least one product in the at least one user content image using the at least one artificial intelligence model comprises identifying a location of the at least one product within bounding box coordinates defined in the at least one user content image” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity such as MPEP 2106.05(f) i. Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “identifying the at least one product in the at least one user content image using the at least one artificial intelligence model comprises identifying a location of the at least one product within bounding box coordinates defined in the at least one user content image”.
For example, “identifying the at least one product in the at least one user content image using the at least one artificial intelligence model comprises identifying a location of the at least one product within bounding box coordinates defined in the at least one user content image” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are a step of transmitting data, and is recognized as well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as storing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-18 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0281250 (herein as 'Miller') as and further in view of Hollis et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0006930 (herein as 'Hollis') and Patel et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,936,969 (herein as ‘Patel’).
As to claim 1 Miller teaches a system for dynamic content provisioning, comprising: at least one non-transitory memory configured to store computer program code instructions (Par. 0078 Miller discloses a memory to store program instructions);
and at least one processor configured to execute the computer program code instructions to: (Par. 0078 Miller discloses a processor);
collect user content from one or more sources based on one or more collection parameters (Fig. 2A and Par. 0030 Miller discloses the system extracting data from internal and external sources. Miller discloses the data that is accessible to be extracted is based upon personal preference information. The person preference information is seen as collection parameters);
organize the collected user content for optimization (Par. 0059 Miller disclose extracting data such as things, comments, textual data, popularity and places);
receive rights management data for the organized user content (Par. 0038 Miller discloses a user displaying a set of slides to the audience and the audience receives only a certain set of slides. The only certain set of slides being accessed by the audience is seen as the strict authentication);
Miller does not teach but Patel teaches perform tagging of the organized user content including determining at least one user content image from the organized user content, identifying at least one product in the at least one user content image using at least one artificial intelligence model, identifying plural tags to be associated with the at least one user content image and probability of each of the plural tags to be associated with the at least one product based on the at least one artificial intelligence model, associating the plural tags and the probability of each of the plural tags with the at least one product in the at least one user content image, and generating a tagged image comprising the at least one product based on at least one of the plural tags and the probability of the at least one of the plural tags (Col. 11 Lines 17-30 Patel discloses associating sets of tags with a probability. The tags are associated with images using a model training process. Col. 12 Lines 30-36 Patel discloses a set of tags with probabilities is associated with an entire image);
Miller and Patel are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, tagging content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the content tagging of Miller to include the tag learning of Hollis, to allow increase relevant content associated with uploaded content. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in order to improve the ability of relevant content to be searched, tracked and retrieved by the user (Par. Col. 1 Lines 25-35 Patel).
Miller does not teach but Hollis teaches and generate an optimized display representation of tagged user content on an output interface for dynamic content provisioning (Par. 0035 Miller discloses presenting the content to the user which includes all additional content associated with the content. Par. 0034 Miller discloses the additional content can include tags. Par. 0070 Miller discloses the ability to display information based upon an icon).
Miller and Hollis are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, tagging content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the content tagging of Miller to include the tag learning of Hollis, to allow increase relevant content associated with uploaded content. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in order to improve the ability of relevant content to be searched and retrieved by the user (Par. 0004-0007 Hollis).
As to claim 2 Miller in combination with Patel and Hollis teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition, Miller teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to collect interaction data for the displayed user content for enhancing the dynamic content provisioning (Par. 0033 Miller discloses the presentation can provide interactive sliders that allow the audiences to provide information while viewing the content).
As to claim 3 Miller in combination with Patel and Hollis teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition, Miller teaches wherein the optimized display representation is an optimal order of the tagged user content and cosmetic rendering of the tagged user content (Par. 0069 Miller discloses selecting the relevant portions of the content are displayed. Selecting the relevant portions of the content is seen as an optimal order).
As to claim 4 Miller in combination with Patel and Hollis teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition, Miller teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a goal for optimization of display representation (Par. 0046 Miller discloses organizing the content display based upon the criteria. Miller discloses the criteria could be popularity, particular subject or one or more attributes of the presented associated with the display. The criteria is seen as optimizing content for the display. The criteria is used to only present content that is useful to the user);
determine grouping criteria for grouping of the user content into a media album (Par. 0033 Miller grouping content based the access limit. Par. 0022 Miller discloses the content is pictures. The pictures are grouped based upon access limit. Grouping the pictures is seen as a media album);
determine search criteria for collecting the user content (Par. 0030 Miller discloses the content associated with personal preference);
select the user content from the one or more sources based on the search criteria organize the selected user content in the media album based on the goal for optimization of the display representation and the grouping criteria (Par. 0035 Miller discloses presenting the content to the user which includes all additional content associated with the content. Par. 0034 Miller discloses the additional content can include tags).
As to claim 5 Miller in combination with Patel and Hollis teaches each and every limitation of claim 3.
In addition, Miller teaches wherein the media album comprises one or more of a photo album, a video album, and a text album (Par. 0033 Miller grouping content based the access limit. Par. 0022 Miller discloses the content is pictures. The pictures are grouped based upon access limit. Grouping the pictures is seen as a media album).
As to claim 6 Miller in combination with Hollis teaches each and every limitation of claim 3.
In addition, Miller teaches wherein the search criteria comprises one or more of user preference, content rating, content type, content category, product type, and user type (Par. 0059 Miller disclose extracting data such as things, comments, textual data, popularity and places).
As to claim 7 Miller in combination with Hollis teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition, Hollis teaches wherein to organize the collected user content for optimization, the at least one processor is further configured to process the user content based on one or more predefined content properties using an artificial intelligence model (Par. 0124 Hollis discloses the user uploading content and the system tagging the uploaded content. Par. 0125 Hollis discloses the tagging is performed by an intelligent learning keyword database that measure factors of the upload and suggest words to be include on the content).
As to claim 8 Miller in combination with Patel and Hollis teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition, Hollis teaches wherein the at least one processor performs the tagging of the organized user content using computer vision assisted tagging algorithm and natural language processing algorithm (Par. 0124 Hollis discloses the user uploading content. The uploaded content is then analyzed by the system. The system suggests fields to capture meta information that is supplied to the user. And the then system provide help annotations to tag insertion. The help annotation is seen as computer vision assisted tagging. Par. 0125 Hollis discloses the tagging is performed by an intelligent learning keyword database that measure factors of the upload and suggest words to be include on the content. Par. 0029 and Par. 0039 Hollis discloses extracting keywords at the natural language level to be suggested as meta tags to be inserted into the content).
As to claim 9 Miller teaches a method for dynamic content provisioning, comprising:
collecting user content from one or more sources based on one or more collection parameters (Fig. 2A and Par. 0030 Miller discloses the system extracting data from internal and external sources. Miller discloses the data that is accessible to be extracted is based upon personal preference information. The person preference information is seen as collection parameters);
organizing the collected user content for optimization (Par. 0059 Miller disclose extracting data such as things, comments, textual data, popularity and places);
receiving rights management data for the organized user content (Par. 0038 Miller discloses a user displaying a set of slides to the audience and the audience receives only a certain set of slides. The only certain set of slides being accessed by the audience is seen as the strict authentication);
Miller does not teach but Patel teaches performing tagging of the organized user content including determining at least one user content image from the organized user content, identifying at least one product in the at least one user content image using at least one artificial intelligence model, identifying plural tags to be associated with the at least one user content image and probability of each of the plural tags to be associated with the at least one product based on the at least one artificial intelligence model, associating the plural tags and the probability of each of the plural tags with the at least one product in the at least one user content image, and generating a tagged image comprising the at least one product based on at least one of the plural tags and the probability of the at least one of the plural tags; (Col. 11 Lines 17-30 Patel discloses associating sets of tags with a probability. The tags are associated with images using a model training process. Col. 12 Lines 30-36 Patel discloses a set of tags with probabilities is associated with an entire image);
Miller and Patel are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, tagging content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the content tagging of Miller to include the tag learning of Hollis, to allow increase relevant content associated with uploaded content. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in order to improve the ability of relevant content to be searched, tracked and retrieved by the user (Par. Col. 1 Lines 25-35 Patel).
Miller does not teach but Hollis teaches and generating an optimized display representation of tagged user content on an output interface for dynamic content provisioning (Par. 0035 Miller discloses presenting the content to the user which includes all additional content associated with the content. Par. 0034 Miller discloses the additional content can include tags. Par. 0070 Miller discloses the ability to display information based upon an icon).
Miller and Hollis are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, tagging content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the content tagging of Miller to include the tag learning of Hollis, to allow increase relevant content associated with uploaded content. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in order to improve the ability of relevant content to be searched and retrieved by the user (Par. 0004-0007 Hollis).
As to claim 10 Miller in combination with Patel and Hollis teaches each and every limitation of claim 9.
In addition, Miller teaches further comprising collecting interaction data for the displayed user content for enhancing the dynamic content provisioning (Par. 0033 Miller discloses the presentation can provide interactive sliders that allow the audiences to provide information while viewing the content).
As to claim 11 Miller in combination with Patel and Hollis teaches each and every limitation of claim 9.
In addition, Miller teaches wherein the optimized display representation is an optimal order of the tagged user content and cosmetic rendering of the tagged user content (Par. 0069 Miller discloses selecting the relevant portions of the content are displayed. Selecting the relevant portions of the content is seen as an optimal order).
As to claim 12 Miller in combination with Patel and Hollis teaches each and every limitation of claim 9.
In addition, Miller teaches further comprising:
determining a goal for optimization of display representation (Par. 0046 Miller discloses organizing the content display based upon the criteria. Miller discloses the criteria could be popularity, particular subject or one or more attributes of the presented associated with the display. The criteria is seen as optimizing content for the display. The criteria is used to only present content that is useful to the user);
determining grouping criteria for grouping of the user content into a media album (Par. 0033 Miller grouping content based the access limit. Par. 0022 Miller discloses the content is pictures. The pictures are grouped based upon access limit. Grouping the pictures is seen as a media album);
determining search criteria for collecting the user content (Par. 0030 Miller discloses the content associated with personal preference);
selecting the user content from the one or more sources based on the search criteria; and organizing the selected user content in the media album based on the goal for optimization of the display representation and the grouping criteria (Par. 0035 Miller discloses presenting the content to the user which includes all additional content associated with the content. Par. 0034 Miller discloses the additional content can include tags).
As to claim 13 Miller in combination with Patel and Hollis teaches each and every limitation of claim 9.
In addition, Miller teaches wherein the media album comprises one or more of a photo album, a video album, and a text album (Par. 0033 Miller grouping content based the access limit. Par. 0022 Miller discloses the content is pictures. The pictures are grouped based upon access limit. Grouping the pictures is seen as a media album).
As to claim 14 Miller in combination with Patel and Hollis teaches each and every limitation of claim 9.
In addition, Miller teaches wherein the search criteria comprises one or more of user preference, content rating, content type, content category, product type, and user type (Par. 0059 Miller disclose extracting data such as things, comments, textual data, popularity and places).
As to claim 15 Miller in combination with Hollis teaches each and every limitation of claim 9.
In addition, Hollis teaches wherein organizing the collected user content for optimization further comprises processing the user content based on one or more predefined content properties using an artificial intelligence model (Par. 0124 Hollis discloses the user uploading content and the system tagging the uploaded content. Par. 0125 Hollis discloses the tagging is performed by an intelligent learning keyword database that measure factors of the upload and suggest words to be include on the content).
As to claim 16 Miller in combination with Patel and Hollis teaches each and every limitation of claim 9.
In addition, Hollis teaches wherein tagging of the organized user content is performed using comprises computer vision assisted tagging algorithm and natural language processing algorithm (Par. 0124 Hollis discloses the user uploading content. The uploaded content is then analyzed by the system. The system suggests fields to capture meta information that is supplied to the user. And the then system provide help annotations to tag insertion. The help annotation is seen as computer vision assisted tagging. Par. 0125 Hollis discloses the tagging is performed by an intelligent learning keyword database that measure factors of the upload and suggest words to be include on the content. Par. 0029 and Par. 0039 Hollis discloses extracting keywords at the natural language level to be suggested as meta tags to be inserted into the content).
As to claim 17 Miller teaches a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer-executable program code instructions which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out operations for dynamic content provisioning, the operations comprising:
collecting user content from one or more sources based on one or more collection parameters (Fig. 2A and Par. 0030 Miller discloses the system extracting data from internal and external sources. Miller discloses the data that is accessible to be extracted is based upon personal preference information. The person preference information is seen as collection parameters);
organizing the collected user content for optimization (Par. 0059 Miller disclose extracting data such as things, comments, textual data, popularity and places);
receiving rights management data for the organized user content (Par. 0038 Miller discloses a user displaying a set of slides to the audience and the audience receives only a certain set of slides. The only certain set of slides being accessed by the audience is seen as the strict authentication);
Miller does not teach but Patel teaches performing tagging for the organized user content including determining at least one user content image from the organized user content, identifying at least one product in the at least one user content image using at least one artificial intelligence model, identifying plural tags to be associated with the at least one user content image and probability of each of the plural tags to be associated with the at least one product based on the at least one artificial intelligence model, associating the plural tags and the probability of each of the plural tags with the at least one product in the at least one user content image, and generating a tagged image comprising the at least one product based on at least one of the plural tags and the probability of the at least one of the plural tags (Col. 11 Lines 17-30 Patel discloses associating sets of tags with a probability using a machine learning models. The tags are associated with images using a model training process. Col. 12 Lines 30-36 Patel discloses a set of tags with probabilities is associated with an entire image);
Miller and Patel are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, tagging content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the content tagging of Miller to include the tag learning of Hollis, to allow increase relevant content associated with uploaded content. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in order to improve the ability of relevant content to be searched, tracked and retrieved by the user (Par. Col. 1 Lines 25-35 Patel).
Miller does not teach but Hollis and generating an optimized display representation of tagged user content on an output interface for dynamic content provisioning (Par. 0035 Miller discloses presenting the content to the user which includes all additional content associated with the content. Par. 0034 Miller discloses the additional content can include tags. Par. 0070 Miller discloses the ability to display information based upon an icon).
Miller and Hollis are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, tagging content. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the content tagging of Miller to include the tag learning of Hollis, to allow increase relevant content associated with uploaded content. The suggestion/motivation to combine is that it would be obvious to try in order to improve the ability of relevant content to be searched and retrieved by the user (Par. 0004-0007 Hollis).
As to claim 21 Miller in combination with Patel and Hollis teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition, Patel teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate plural categories of the user content based on categorization criteria, provide the plural categories of the user content to the at least one artificial intelligence model, associate a score with each of the plural categories of the user content using the at least one artificial intelligence model, generate a rank for each of the plural categories of the user content based on the score associated with each of the plural categories of the user content, and dynamically update the rank and the score using a multi-armed bandit algorithm. (Col. 11 Lines 17-30 Patel discloses associating sets of tags with a probability. The tags are associated with images using a model training process. Col. 18 Lines 20-30 Patel discloses applying scored to the predicted tags before applying the multi labels. Col. 12 Lines 30-36 Patel discloses a set of tags with probabilities is associated with an entire image).
As to claim 22 Miller in combination with Patel and Hollis teaches each and every limitation of claim 1.
In addition Patel teaches wherein identifying the at least one product in the at least one user content image using the at least one artificial intelligence model comprises identifying a location of the at least one product within bounding box coordinates defined in the at least one user content image (Col. 17 Lines 15-30 Patel discloses using bound boxes to identify the objects that are needed to be tagged).
Conclusion
8. 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 JERMAINE A MINCEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5010. The examiner can normally be reached 8am EST until 5pm 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 at (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 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.
/J.A.M/ August 26, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 2159
/ANN J LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights