Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 561
`
`Exhibit E
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 562
`Case 12acv-OlQ0Lcrs Document 16-5
`Filed 02/18/25
`Page 2 of 19 PagelD #: 562
`NITED STATES
`PATENT AND [TRADEMARK
`OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`15/637,561
`
`06/29/2017
`
`Alex Fishman
`
`2050.171US2
`
`8149
`
`SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/OPEN TV
`P.O. BOX 2938
`MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0938
`
`TRINH, TUNG THANH
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2421
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/26/2018
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`SLW @blackhillsip.com
`uspto @slwip.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

` Office Action Summary
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`5)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s)__ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6)
`C] Claim(s} _is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
`7)
`8) ( Claim(s)__ is/are objected to.
`9)
`(4 Claim(s)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)() The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on __is/are: a). accepted or b)(_) objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)() Acknowledgmentis made ofa claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)1) None of the:
`b)( Some**
`a)Q All
`1.1) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(7) Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20181110
`
`ase
`1:24-cv-0
`O1-
`DO men
`6 -
`ed 0
`8
`Pade
`O
`QO PagelD #:
`56
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 563
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`15/637 ,561
`Fishman etal.
`
`
`
`AIA Status
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`
`TUNGTTRINH 2421 No
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)[¥] Responsive to communication(s)filed on 07/23/2018.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`2a)l¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) C) This action is non-final.
`3)() An election was made bythe applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the meritsis
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparfe Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 564
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document16-5_Filed 02/18/25 Page 4 of 19 PagelD #: 564
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/637,561
`Art Unit: 2421
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA Status
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AlA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`Miscellaneous
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-8 and 14-10 are amended.
`
`Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
`
`This application is a CON of 12/877,034 09/07/2010 or US Patent No. 9,699,503.
`
`Responseto Arguments
`
`Regarding double patenting rejection, Applicant stated in remarks that a Terminal
`
`Disclaimer to US Patent 9,699,303 was enclosed. However, the Terminal Disclaimer is
`
`not on files, therefore the 101 rejection is maintained.
`
`Regarding 101 rejection, the rejection indicates that claimed invention is a
`
`combination of known concepts of abstract ideas identified in precedent court
`
`cases. Applicant analyzed and applied the court cases individually to the claimed
`
`invention; therefore the examiner includes interpretation of abstract ideas based on the
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 565
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC
`Document16-5_
`Filed 02/18/25
`Page 5 of 19 PagelD #: 565
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/637,561
`Art Unit: 2421
`
`Page 3
`
`court cases “Intellectual Ventures | LLC v. Capital One” and Bascom for “Subject
`
`Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes” in 101 rejection below:
`
`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 thistitle.
`
`Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
`
`not directed to statutory subject matter. Based on Supreme Court precedent, to be
`
`patenteligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, a statutory method/process claim must (1) be tied
`
`to a particular machine or apparatus or (2) transform a particular article into a different
`
`state or thing (see at least Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 70 (1972); Diamondv.Diehr,
`
`450 U.S. 192 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 589 n.9 (1978); and Cochrane v.
`
`Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 788 (1876)). Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the use of
`
`a particular machine or transformation of an article must impose meaningful limits on
`
`the claim's scope to impart patentability (Benson, 409 U.S. 71-72). The involvementof
`
`the machine or transformation must not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity
`
`(Flook, 437 U.S. 590). Also see In re Bilski, No. 2007-1130, _F.3d_, 2008 WL4757.
`
`The claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural
`
`phenomenon, or an abstract ideas) without significantly more. In general the claims are
`
`directed abstract ideas of accessing database information (content, viewer and social
`
`network), generating a list of popular content, customizing the list to generate a playlist
`
`for individual user, and sending the playlist to display on user device (the playlist is a
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 566
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC
`Document16-5_
`Filed 02/18/25
`Page 6 of 19 PagelD #: 566
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/637,561
`Art Unit: 2421
`
`Page 4
`
`subsetof video contentitems in the database, the items are not modified nor
`
`transformed by the above processes); the abstract ideas are identified by the court case
`
`Intellectual Ventures | LLC v. Capital One and Bascom GlobalInternet Services,
`
`INC v. AT&T Mobility LLC.
`
`Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Product and Processes:
`
`Step 1 (Yes), claimed invention of claims 1, 14 and 20 are directed to a process,
`
`a system and a product respectively.
`
`Step 2A (Yes), the claimed invention are clearly focused on concepts relating to
`
`tracking or organizing information including “tailoring content based on information
`
`about the user” (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One) and“filtering content”
`
`(BASCOM, customizing filtering content of network account based on schemesor
`
`elements).
`
`Interpretation the steps of claim 1:
`
`“accessing a database to obtain content utilization data ... wherein the plurality of
`
`viewers comprises a second viewer who is notidentified as a social connection of the
`
`first viewer” are known concepts of abstract ideas “collecting, recognizing certain data
`
`within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data” (Intellectual Ventures |
`
`LLC v. Capital One);
`
`“automatically generating ... a list of popular content items that are currently
`
`popular among the plurality of viewers based on the content utilization data” are known
`
`concepts of abstract ideas “collecting, recognizing certain data within the collected data
`
`set, and storing that recognized data”(Intellectual Ventures | LLC v. Capital One) or
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 567
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document16-5
`Filed 02/18/25
`Page 7 of 19 PagelD #: 567
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/637,561
`Art Unit: 2421
`
`Page 5
`
`“filtering content based on user account information” (Bascom Global Internet
`
`Services, INC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, p 6-9);
`
`“customizing ... the list of popular content items to generate a customizedplaylist
`
`... comprises” are known concepts of abstract ideas “collecting, recognizing certain
`
`data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data’ (Intellectual
`
`Ventures | LLC v. Capital One) or“filtering content based on user account information”
`
`(Bascom GlobalInternet Services, INC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, p 6-9)
`
`“generating a score for each item from the list of popular content items based on
`
`the profile data of the first viewer” are known concepts of abstract ideas “filtering content
`
`based on user account information” (Bascom Global Internet Services, INC v. AT&T
`
`Mobility LLC, filtering schemes and elements by score is well knownin the art);
`
`“including items in the playlist based on at least some of the scores of the items
`
`from the list of popular content items” are known concepts of abstract ideas “filtering
`
`content based on user accountinformation” (Bascom Global Internet Services, INC v.
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC, filtering schemes and elements by score is well knownin the art);
`
`and
`
`“based on the generating of the playlist, automatically sending .. perform an
`
`operation for an item of the items included in the playlist” are known concepts of
`
`abstract ideas “collecting, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and
`
`storing that recognized data” (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One, pages 11-13
`
`claim 21 manipulating data in the display interface)
`
`Step 2B (No), the claimed invention is implementasin fig. 1, which is a
`
`conventional system of video distribution, the claimed invention is implemented as
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 568
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document16-5
`Filed 02/18/25
`Page 8 of 19 PagelD #: 568
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/637,561
`Art Unit: 2421
`
`Page 6
`
`software applications at server and STB. The claims further do not include additional
`
`elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
`
`becausethe claims do not go beyond requiring the gathering,
`
`organizing/manipulating/analysis, and display of available information in a particular
`
`filed, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means
`
`for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer
`
`and network technology. Limiting the claims to the particular technological environment
`
`of media asset recommending is, without more, insufficient to transform them into
`
`patent-eligible applications of the abstract idea at their core (see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
`
`2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593). Merely selecting
`
`information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing
`
`significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit
`
`exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.
`
`Inquiry then must turn to any requirements for how the desired result is achieved.
`
`In the instant application, the claims’ invocation of an input device and control circuitry
`
`do not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The claims
`
`are implementedin fig. 1, the claims at issue do not require any non-conventional
`
`computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-
`
`generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of
`
`the claimed information collection, organize/manipulate/analysis, and display functions
`
`“on a set of generic computer components” and display devices (Bascom, 2016 WL
`
`3514158, at *6-7).
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 569
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document16-5_Filed 02/18/25 Page 9 of 19 PagelD #: 569
`
`Application/Control Number: 15/637,561
`Art Unit: 2421
`
`Page 7
`
`Double Patenting
`
`The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created
`
`doctrine groundedin public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the
`
`unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent
`
`and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double
`
`patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at
`
`least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference
`
`claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have
`
`been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46
`
`USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum,
`
`686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619
`
`(CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
`
`A timelyfiled terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321 (d)
`
`may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory
`
`double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be
`
`commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a
`
`result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See
`
`MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file
`
`provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(I)(1) -
`
`706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor tofile
`
`provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR
`
`1.321 (b).
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:
`570
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:
`571
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:
`572
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:
`573
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:
`574
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:
`575
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:
`576
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:
`577
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:
`578
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 16-5 Filed 02/18/25 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:
`579
`
`