DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims at a high level recite classifying and marching documents.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 1-13 recite a method and a system and therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine and a product.
The USPTO Guidance recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Step 2A, Prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2). MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), (d).
Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look in Step 2B to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field; or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
First, determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claim 1 recites -
▪ acquiring analysis resource data of each theater from at least one analysis resource data providing server (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can collect and analyze data);
▪ deriving a prediction result value on the basis of the acquired analysis resource data by a prediction modeling algorithm (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and mathematical evaluation) — a user can calculate and derive predictions);
▪ generating a contents screening table on the basis of the prediction result value (Abstract Idea of a mental process, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a user can generate a content table based on the predicted data);
These limitations, based on their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a mental process, i.e. a judicial exception. For these reasons, the independent claim 1, as well as independents claims 12 and 13, which include limitations commensurate in scope with claim 1, recite a judicial exception.
A method, like the claimed method, “a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” See Digitech Image Techs, LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results from certain results of the collection and analysis was held to be an abstract idea. See In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 795—96 (CCPA 1982), which held that “a mental process that a neurologist should follow” when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions was not patentable.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
Next determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). To integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claim elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Additional elements:
▪ table generation server; a theater server, a social network server, a commercial district statistics server, and an Over-The-Top (OTT) server (claims 2, 12); a memory (claim 13) (Amount to “Apply it”. Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: high level application of using routine computer hardware to merely invoking a computer component to apply the exception).
The term “additional elements” for claim features, limitations, or steps that the claim recites beyond the identified judicial exception. However, claims do not recite any improvements to these additional elements, nor does the claims recite any particularly programmed or configured computer system, device, or machine learning. Rather, the additional elements in claims 1, 12 and 13 serve merely to automate the abstract idea. See Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., 50 F. 4" 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“[A] patent that ‘automate[s] “pen and paper methodologies” to conserve human resources and minimize errors’ is a ‘quintessential “do it on a computer” patent’ directed to an abstract idea.”) (quoting Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Therefore, none of these recited additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating and processing known data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
For these reasons, independent claim 1-2, as well as independent claims 12 and 13, which include similar additional elements as claim 1, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
Next, determine whether the claims recite an “inventive concept” that “must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.” BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see MPEP § 2106.05(d). There must be more than “computer functions [that] are “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225 (2014) (second alteration in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)); see MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 2B: The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements:
Claims 1-2, 12-13 recite plurality of servers, which appear to be merely providing a profile data and is not positively integrated in the claims (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il). Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer and associated computer network to obtain data, use data to identify other data, and comparing data, are some of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of displaying, processing and storing data using some unspecified, generic computer).
Note, that in similar case, such as Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), the Courts have identified that the additional elements of displaying and analyzing data, as shown in the independent claims 1-2, 12, 13 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Consequently, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
No “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract method of organizing human activity into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05. Rather, the additional elements identified above are merely well-understood, conventional computer components, as confirmed by the Specification. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(1). For example, the Specification refers to the additional elements in generic terms.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements relating to computing components amount to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer components (i.e., additional elements) includes any generic computing components that are capable of being programmed to communicate and process known data.
Additionally, the computer components are used for performing insignificant extra-solution activity and well understood, routine, and conventional functions. For example, the claimed processor and machine learning merely communicates and processes known data. Activities such as these are insignificant extra-solution activity and, therefore, well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); see also, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price); CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754 (Consulting and updating an activity log); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Recording a customer’s order); Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017) (Identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price). Furthermore, limitations such as integrating account details are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
Independent system claim 1-2, 12 and 13 contain the identified abstract ideas, with the additional elements of a processor, hardware and the media, which is a generic computer component, and thus not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale above.
Dependent claims further describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of the dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 3-6, 8-9, 11:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea)
▪ claims recite data analyzing data characteristics by extracting terms and keywords and statistics (i.e. a list of contents to be screened, a running time of contents, a genre of contents, a main viewing age group of contents, and a main viewing gender of contents, contents-related keywords by audiences, data including at least one among a residential population, contents preferences, attendance rate etc.) (Abstract Idea of a mental process. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the obtaining/determining probability distribution and divergence, as drafted, is an abstract idea of “a mental process” because it recites a process that can be performed in the human mind (i.e., observation, determination, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) — a mathematical evaluation, which performs the determination, thereby further defining the abstract idea. A human being may use this mathematical calculation to facilitate the mental evaluation in order to arrive at the necessary determination. This claim limitation appears to recite both a mathematical formula and mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additional elements: no additional elements recited. Step 2B: the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to claims 7, 10:
Dependent claim 7 which include limitations commensurate in scope with the claim1, recite a judicial exception. The claims disclose extracting feature data of each theater by analyzing the analysis resource data, by the prediction modeling algorithm; and (b-2) generating a prediction result value by learning the extracted feature data, by the prediction modeling algorithm; step (b) further includes, after step (b-2), the step of (b-3) correcting the prediction result value derived by the prediction modeling algorithm, using an ensemble algorithm (Amount to “Apply it”. Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Examiner’s note: high level application of using machine learning to analyze data).
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements that are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 2-10 are ineligible for the reasons discussed above.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-6 are objected based on the following informalities -
Claims 3-6, 7 recite – “i.e., data”.
First - each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). (See MPEP (608.01(m)).
Second - the phrase "i.e." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 - fail to properly spell out the claimed acronym - an OTT server. Acronym characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the specification should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other acronyms or abbreviations which may appear in the specification or other claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by IKAI et al. (US 20150220967).
Regarding claim 1, IKAI teaches a method of generating a contents screening table customized for each theater by a contents screening table generation server, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) acquiring analysis resource data of each theater ([0026], [0047]) from at least one analysis resource data providing server ([0123]);
(b) deriving a prediction result value on the basis of the acquired analysis resource data by a prediction modeling algorithm ([0117]); and
(c) generating a contents screening table on the basis of the prediction result value ([0027], [0033]-[0034], [0056], [0162]).
Claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theiste et al. (US 2004/0181807) and in further view of Eliashberg et al. “Demand-driven scheduling of movies in a multiplex”.
Regarding claim 1, Theiste teaches a method of generating a contents screening table customized for each theater by a contents screening table generation server, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) acquiring analysis resource data of each theater ([0048], [0051]-[0052]) from at least one analysis resource data providing server ([0030], F1:500 F9);
(b) deriving a
(c) generating a contents screening table on the basis of the
Theiste does not explicitly teach, however Eliashberg discloses (b) deriving a prediction result value on the basis of the acquired analysis resource data by a prediction modeling algorithm (p.77 ¶2.1 Col.2, p.80 ¶4.1-4.11, p.81 ¶4.1.3); and (c) generating a contents screening table on the basis of the prediction result value (p.80 ¶4. C1, p.81 ¶4.1.3, p.84 F3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Theiste to derive a prediction result by a prediction modeling algorithm as disclosed by Eliashberg. Doing so provides direct operational efficiency by automating the preparation of the weekly movie schedule (Eliashberg p.85 C2).
Regarding claim 2, Theiste as modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one analysis resource data providing server includes at least one among a theater server, a social network server, a commercial district statistics server, and an Over-The-Top (OTT) server (Theiste [0015], [0038], [0041]).
Regarding claim 3, Theiste as modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the analysis resource data is data that can be acquired from the theater server, i.e., data including at least one among a list of currently screened contents, a list of contents to be screened (Theiste [0044], Eliashberg p.77 C2L1-11, 21-25), a running time of contents, a genre of contents (Eliashberg p.82 Table 2d), a main viewing age group of contents, and a main viewing gender of contents (Theiste [0038], [0043], Eliashberg p.81 C1 1st par.).
Regarding claim 11, Theiste as modified teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising, after step (c), the step of (d) updating the prediction model on the basis of an attendance rate of each theater or a result of reaction of the audience according to the attendance rate of each theater (Eliashberg p. 81 ¶4.1.4, p.82 C2).
Regarding claim 12, Theiste teaches a contents screening table generation system for generating a contents screening table customized for each theater, the system comprising:
an analysis resource data providing server for providing analysis resource data of each theater to a contents screening table generation server, and including at least one among a theater server, a social network server, a commercial district statistics server, and an Over-The-Top (OTT) server ([0015], [0038], [0041]); and
the contents screening table generation server for acquiring analysis resource data ([0048], [0051]-[0052]) of each theater from at least one analysis resource data providing server ([0030], F1:500 F9),
deriving a
generating a contents screening table on the basis of the
Theiste does not explicitly teach, however Eliashberg discloses deriving a prediction result value on the basis of the acquired analysis resource data by a prediction modeling algorithm (p.77 ¶2.1 Col.2, p.80 ¶4.1-4.11, p.81 ¶4.1.3); generating a contents screening table on the basis of the prediction result value (p.80 ¶4. C1, p.81 ¶4.1.3, p.84 F3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Theiste to derive a prediction result by a prediction modeling algorithm as disclosed by Eliashberg. Doing so provides direct operational efficiency by automating the preparation of the weekly movie schedule (Eliashberg p.85 C2).
Regarding claim 13, Theiste teaches a contents screening table generation server comprising a central processing unit for executing a set of instructions for executing a method of generating a content screening table customized for each theater, and a memory for storing the set of instructions, wherein the method of generating a content screening table customized for each theater includes the steps of: (a) acquiring analysis resource data of each theater from at least one analysis resource data providing server; (b) deriving a prediction result value on the basis of the acquired analysis resource data by a prediction modeling algorithm; and (c) generating a contents screening table on the basis of the prediction result value.
Claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theiste as modified and in further view of Bhagat et al. (US 20140358630).
Regarding claim 4, Theiste as modified does not explicitly teach, however Bhagat discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the analysis resource data is data that can be acquired from a social network, i.e., data including at least one among the number of times of mentioning contents-related keywords by audiences who use the social network and the number of recommendations of an article or a message including the contents-related keywords, wherein the contents-related keywords are keywords including at least one among keywords of actors starring in the contents and keywords of a production company or a director who has produced the contents ([0041], [0051], [0074], [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Theiste as modified to include social network data as disclosed by Bhagat. Doing so provides a detailed characterization of the audiences and help generate movie campaign data from such data (Bhagat [0004]-[0005]).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theiste as modified and in further view of Schewel et al. (US 20150006255).
Regarding claim 5, Theiste as modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the analysis resource data is data that can be acquired from a commercial district statistics server (Schewel [0024]-[0025]), i.e., data including at least one among a residential population, a workplace population, and a floating population around each theater, an income level compared to the residential population, and an income level compared to the workplace population (Schewel [0025], [0035]-[0036], [0041], [0056], [0059]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Theiste as modified to include data acquired from statistics server as disclosed by Schewel. Doing so provides a demographic data that are useful to nearly any person planning an organization, an institution, an individual, and/or a group of individuals that would like to know more about the people involved (Schewel [0022]).
Claims 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theiste as modified and in further view of Nagaraja Rao et al. (US 10045082).
Regarding claim 6, Theiste as modified does not explicitly teach, however Nagaraja Rao discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the analysis resource data is data that can be acquired from an OTT server (C4L9-15, C9L50-57), i.e., data including at least one among a list of contents currently provided by the OTT server, contents preferences, a main viewing age group of contents, a main viewing gender of contents, and contents of which the number of queries has increased rapidly within a predetermined period of time (C3L1-14, C4L58-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Theiste as modified to include data acquired from an OTT server as disclosed by Nagaraja Rao. Doing so can increase the accuracy of demographic impressions and audience measurements (Nagaraja Rao C3L63).
Regarding claim 7, Theiste as modified teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein step (b) includes the steps of:
(b-1) extracting feature data of each theater by analyzing the analysis resource data, by the prediction modeling algorithm (Eliashberg p.80-81 ¶4.1.1-4.1.2)
Theiste as modified does not explicitly teach, however Nagaraja Rao discloses (b-2) generating a prediction result value by learning the extracted feature data, by the prediction modeling algorithm (C22L18-30, C2318-23, C27L45-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Theiste as modified to include data acquired from an OTT server as disclosed by Nagaraja Rao. Doing so can provide an ability to perform accurately on new, unseen data examples (Nagaraja Rao C23L23-25).
Regarding claim 8, Theiste as modified teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the feature data of each theater is data generated by analyzing the analysis resource data by the contents screening table generation server, i.e., data including at least one among a residential purpose of audiences living around each theater, a difference between a work income and a residential income, contents preferences, and the number of times of mentioning contents-related keywords (Nagaraja Rao C4L58-65).
Regarding claim 9, Theiste as modified teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the prediction result value is a value including at least one among the number of audiences, a main age group of the audiences, a main gender group of the audiences in each theater according to a time zone, day of week, or date acquired by learning the feature data (Nagaraja Rao C23L60-65, C25L12-25, 49-67).
Regarding claim 10, Theiste as modified teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein step (b) further includes, after step (b-2), the step of (b-3) correcting the prediction result value derived by the prediction modeling algorithm, using an ensemble algorithm (Nagaraja Rao C20L66-67, C21L61-65, C34L27-29, adj C11L62-67).
Claim 8 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theiste as modified by Eliashberg and Nagaraja Rao and in further view of Schewel et al. (US 20150006255).
Regarding claim 8, Theiste as modified teaches the method according to claim 7 as disclosed above, Schewel additionally discloses wherein the feature data of each theater is data generated by analyzing the analysis resource data by the contents screening table generation server, i.e., data including at least one among a residential purpose of audiences living around each theater, a difference between a work income and a residential income, contents preferences, and the number of times of mentioning contents-related keywords (Schewel [0025], [0035]-[0036], [0041], [0056], [0059]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Theiste as modified to include demographic data as disclosed by Schewel. Doing so provides a demographic data that are useful to nearly any person planning an organization, an institution, an individual, and/or a group of individuals that would like to know more about the people involved (Schewel [0022]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated on PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to POLINA G PEACH whose telephone number is (571)270-7646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 5:30.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 571-270-1760. 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.
/POLINA G PEACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165 June 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights