Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 1 of 30
`
`EXHIBIT K
`(Part 3 of 5)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 2 of 30
`
`Application Serial No. 14/506,822
`Attorney Docket No. 127072.00121
`Page 5 of 24
`
`media stream for the presence of a trigger further comprise one or more additional programming
`
`instructions that, when executed, cause the central processing unit device to:
`
`insert one or more alternate digital media assets that are not associated with the trigger
`
`into the first composite digital media stream if it is determined the at least one user has reacted
`
`unfavorably to the trigger.
`
`15. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more digital media
`
`assets associated with the trigger comprise one or more advertisements related to the trigger.
`
`16. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 8, wherein the one or more instructions for
`
`determining at least one of the [[set]] plurality of second digital media assets to insert the
`
`determined first portion of the second [[set]] plurality of digital media assets into the first
`
`composite digital media stream comprise one or more additional programming instructions that,
`
`when executed, cause the central processing unit device to:
`
`perfoi in a rule-based substitution of one or more of the digital media assets from the first
`
`[[set]] plurality of digital media assets with one or more of the digital media assets from the
`
`second [[set]] plurality of digital media assets to create a user-specific [[set]] plurality of digital
`
`media assets.
`
`17. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 8, wherein the computer-readable storage
`
`medium further comprises one or more programming instructions that, when executed, cause the
`
`central processing unit device to:
`
`compile a user narrative framework for the at least one user based upon a listing of digital
`
`media assets transmitted to the at least one user; and
`
`store the user narrative framework on the computer-readable storage medium.
`
`#48464995 v2
`
`TT00061 86
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 3 of 30
`
`Application Serial No. 14/506,822
`Attorney Docket No. 127072.00121
`Page 6 of 24
`
`18. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 17, wherein the one or more programming
`
`instructions for compiling the user narrative framework further comprise one or more additional
`
`instructions that, when executed, cause the central processing unit device to:
`
`track the at least one user as they receive multiple digital media streams.
`
`19. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 18, wherein the one or more programming
`
`instructions for tracking the at least one user further comprise one or more programming
`
`instructions that, when executed, cause the central processing unit device to:
`
`target advertising to the at least one user based upon the user narrative framework
`
`20. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 8, wherein the user information
`
`comprises social network information.
`
`21. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 8, wherein the first [[set]] plurality of
`
`digital media assets includes one or more of a foreground image, a background image, or audio.
`
`22. (Currently Amended) A method for creating a user specific composite digital media
`
`display, the method comprising:
`
`identifying, by a central processing unit device, a first [[set]] plurality of digital media
`
`assets;
`
`creating, by the central processing unit device, a first composite digital media stream
`
`including at least a portion of the first [[set]] plurality of digital media assets;
`
`retrieving, by the central processing unit device, user information for [[the]] at least one
`
`user, wherein the user information containing contains one or more user attributes for the at least
`
`one user, wherein the one or more attributes comprises an internal narrative traits preference
`
`topology;
`
`#48464995 v2
`
`TT0006187
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 4 of 30
`
`Application Serial No. 14/506,822
`Attorney Docket No. 127072.00121
`Page 7 of 24
`
`selecting, by the central processing unit device, a second [[set]] plurality of digital media
`
`assets, wherein at least a portion of the second [[set]] plurality of digital media assets [[is]] are
`
`associated with one or more user attributes found in the user information;
`
`determining, by the central processing unit device, at least a first portion of the second
`
`[[set]] plurality of digital media assets to insert into the first composite digital media stream;
`
`creating, by the central processing unit device, a user-specific composite digital media
`
`stream by inserting the determined first portion of the second [[set]] plurality of digital media
`
`assets into the first composite digital media stream; and
`
`transmitting, by the central processing unit device, the user-specific composite digital
`
`media stream to the at least one user.
`
`23. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 22, further comprising:
`
`retrieving, by the central processing unit device, second user infoi illation for a second
`
`user, wherein the second user information contains one or more user attributes for the second
`
`user,
`
`determining, by the central processing unit device, at least a second portion of the second
`
`[[set]] plurality of digital media assets to insert into the first composite digital media stream;
`
`creating, by the central processing unit device, a second user-specific composite digital
`
`media stream by inserting the determined second portion of the second [[set]] plurality of digital
`
`media assets into the first composite digital media stream, and
`
`transmitting, by the central processing unit device, the second user-specific composite
`
`digital media stream to the second user.
`
`24. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 22, further comprising:
`
`#48464995 v2
`
`TT0006188
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 5 of 30
`
`Application Serial No. 14/506,822
`Attorney Docket No. 127072.00121
`Page 8 of 24
`
`monitoring, by the central processing unit device, the first composite digital media stream
`
`for the presence of a trigger, wherein the trigger indicates a personalization opportunity in the
`
`first composite digital media stream.
`
`25. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 24, wherein a personalization opportunity
`
`comprises a location within the first composite digital media stream at which one or more of the
`
`second [[set]] plurality of digital media assets can be inserted into the first composite digital
`
`media stream, and wherein the one or more inserted second digital media assets are chosen
`
`specifically for the at least one user receiving the first composite digital media stream.
`
`26. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 25, wherein monitoring the first
`
`composite digital media stream for the presence of a trigger further comprises:
`
`accessing, by the central processing unit device, a user profile associated with the at least
`
`one user;
`
`determining, by the central processing unit device, whether the at least one user has
`
`historically responded favorably to one or more digital media assets associated with the trigger;
`
`and
`
`in response to the determining whether the at least one user has historically responded
`
`favorably to one or more digital media assets:
`
`inserting, by the central processing unit device, the one or more digital media
`
`assets associated with the trigger into the first composite digital media stream if it is
`
`determined the at least one user has reacted favorably to the trigger, and
`
`#48464995 v2
`
`TT0006189
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 6 of 30
`
`Application Serial No. 14/506,822
`Attorney Docket No. 127072.00121
`Page 9 of 24
`
`inserting, by the central processing unit device, one or more alternate digital
`
`media assets that are not associated with the trigger into the first composite digital media
`
`stream if it is determined the at least one user has reacted unfavorably to the trigger.
`
`27. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 22, wherein inserting the determined first
`
`portion of the second [[set]] plurality of digital media assets into the first composite digital media
`
`stream comprises:
`
`perfoi ming, by the central processing unit device, a rule-based substitution of one or
`
`more of the digital media assets from the first [[set]] plurality of digital media assets with one or
`
`more of the digital media assets from the second [[set]] plurality of digital media assets to create
`
`a user-specific [[set]] plurality of digital media assets.
`
`28. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 22, further comprising:
`
`compiling, by the central processing unit device, a user narrative framework for the at
`
`least one user based upon a listing of digital media assets transmitted to the at least one user; and
`
`storing, by the central processing unit device, the user narrative framework on the
`
`computer-readable storage medium.
`
`29. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 28, wherein compiling the user narrative
`
`framework further comprises:
`
`tracking, by the central processing unit device, the at least one user as they receive
`
`multiple digital media streams.
`
`30. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 29, wherein tracking the at least one user
`
`further comprises:
`
`#48464995 v2
`
`TT0006190
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 7 of 30
`
`Application Serial No. 14/506,822
`Attorney Docket No. 127072.00121
`Page 10 of 24
`
`targeting, by the central processing unit device, advertising to the at least one user based
`
`upon the user narrative framework.
`
`#48464995 v2
`
`TT0006191
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 8 of 30
`
`Application Serial No. 14/506,822
`Attorney Docket No. 127072.00121
`Page 11 of 24
`
`The Examiner is thanked for the substantive examination provided in this case. In the
`
`REMARKS
`
`Non-final Office Action, the Office has rejected claims 8-30. More particularly:
`
`• The Office has rejected claims 8-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being
`directed to non-statutory subject matter.
`• The Office has rejected claims 8-30 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as allegedly failing
`to comply with the written description requirement.
`The Office has rejected claims 8-30 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as allegedly being
`indefinite.
`• The Office has rejected claims 8-11, 16, 21-25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as
`being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,904,922 to Haberman et al. ("Haberman").
`• The Office has rejected claims 12-15, 17-19, 26, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C.
`§103(a) as being unpatentable over Habei man in view of U.S. Patent Application
`Publication No. 2003/0236582 to Zamir et al. ("Zamir").
`• The Office has rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
`over Haberman in view of Zamir and U.S. Patent No. 7,472,110 to Achlioptas
`("Achlioptas").
`
`Claims 8-14, 16-19, and 21-30 are amended herein. Support for the amendments to the
`
`claims may be found throughout the specification as originally published at least at paragraphs
`
`[0005]-[0006], [0017], and [0054]. Accordingly, no new matter has been added as a result of the
`
`amendments to the claims.
`
`It should be noted that Applicant is not conceding that the claims amended herein are
`
`unpatentable over the art cited by the Examiner, as the present claim amendments are made only
`
`to facilitate expeditious prosecution. Applicant respectfully reserves the right to pursue these
`
`and other claims in one or more continuation and/or divisional patent applications. Applicant
`
`specifically states that no amendment to any claim should be construed as a disclaimer of any
`
`interest in or right to an equivalent of any element or feature of the amended claim.
`
`#48464995 v2
`
`TT00061 92
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 9 of 30
`
`Application Serial No. 14/506,822
`Attorney Docket No. 127072.00121
`Page 12 of 24
`
`Upon entry of this Amendment, claims 8-30 will remain pending. For the reasons set
`
`forth hereinbelow, it is requested that the rejections associated with the pending claims be
`
`withdrawn, and that a notice of allowance be issued.
`
`Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §101
`
`Claims 8-30 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception
`
`without significantly more. The Office states that each of the claims "is directed to the abstract
`
`idea of determining at least a first portion of the second set of digital media assets to insert in to
`
`the first composite digital medial stream and creating a user-specific composite digital media
`
`stream.- Office Action at 9. Applicant respectfully disagrees, the claimed invention does
`
`provide significantly more than the judicial exception, above and beyond an abstract idea.
`
`Claim 8 is plainly not directed to an abstract idea. Rather, the claim is directed to a
`
`system to:
`
`identify a first plurality of digital media assets, create a first composite
`digital media stream including at least a portion of the first plurality of digital
`media assets, retrieve user information for at least one user, the user information
`containing one or more user attributes for the at least one user, wherein the one or
`more attributes comprise an internal narrative traits preference topology,
`select a second plurality of digital media assets, wherein at least a portion of the
`second plurality of digital media assets are associated with one or more user
`attributes found in the user information, select, based on the user information, a
`first portion of the second plurality of digital media assets to insert into the first
`composite digital media stream, wherein the first portion is selected to
`increase engagement of the at least one user, create a user-specific composite
`digital media stream by inserting the determined first portion of the second
`plurality of digital media assets into the first composite digital media stream, and
`transmit the user-specific composite digital media stream to the at least one user.
`
`There is nothing in the claim that would lead one to conclude that this claim is directed to
`
`an abstract idea as that term has been defined by the courts. This is particularly true when the
`
`#48464995 v2
`
`TT0006193
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 10 of 30
`
`Application Serial No. 14/506,822
`Attorney Docket No. 127072.00121
`Page 13 of 24
`
`claim is construed as a whole and the construction is informed by the underlying specification, as
`
`is always required. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`As explained in a May 4, 2016 memorandum issued by Deputy Commissioner Bahr,
`
`"under the two-part analysis described in the Interim Eligibility Guidance, when an examiner
`
`determines that a claim is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A), the rejection should identify
`
`the abstract idea as it is recited... in the claim and explain why it corresponds to a concept that
`
`courts have identified as an abstract idea." Bahr, Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility
`
`Rejection and Evaluating Applicant's Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection, p. 1
`
`(May 4, 2016) (emphasis in original). In a November 2, 2016 memorandum, Deputy
`
`Commissioner Bahr further stated to "be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims by looking
`
`at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims." Bahr,
`
`Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decisions, p. 2 (November 2, 2016) (quoting NkRO, Inc. dba
`
`Planet Blue v. Bandai NtlinC0 Gail es America Inc., 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`
`Here, the Office appears to generalize the claims by comparing them to simply customizing
`
`information (e.g., Affinity Labs) and collecting analyzing and displaying information (e.g.,
`
`Electric Power Group). See Office Action at 10. Applicant submits the Office is oversimplifying
`
`the claims particularly in light of the underlying specification.
`
`The Interim Eligibility Guidance' sets forth the two-part test for making a decision as to
`
`whether a particular claim sets forth patent-eligible subject matter. The patent-eligibility
`
`analysis is not a determination under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, 102 or 103; rather, the patent-eligibility
`
`1
`
`2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, (dated 12/10/14) (Published at 79 FR 74618, 12/16/14) (-Interim
`Eligibility Guidance"); see also USPTO Abstract Idea Examples (USPTO Examples), available at:
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/ abstract_idea_examples.pdf; July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, Appendix 1
`(July 2015), available at: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defaulUfiles/documents/ieg-july-2015-appl.pdf.
`
`#48464995 v2
`
`TT00061 94
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 11 of 30
`
`Application Serial No. 14/506,822
`Attorney Docket No. 127072.00121
`Page 14 of 24
`
`analysis is a threshold determination as to whether the claims at issue seek to preemptively claim
`
`an abstract idea as that phrase is used by the courts.
`
`(1) The claims are not directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`First, the courts use the phrase "abstract idea" in a special, legal sense. This is the reason
`
`Deputy Commissioner Bahr instructed Examiners to set forth which abstract idea a court has
`
`identified that is allegedly reflected in the claims. The courts do not use the phrase abstract idea
`
`in its normal sense. Rather, the Supreme Court uses "abstract idea" as a legal term, namely:
`
`In any event, we need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the "abstract
`ideas" category in this case. It is enough to recognize that there is no meaningful
`distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of
`intermediate settlement at issue here. Both are squarely in the realm of abstract
`ideas as we have used that term."
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2357 (2014) (emphasis added).
`
`The Court in Alice places the phrase "abstract idea" in quotation marks and emphasizes
`
`"as we have used that term" to clarify that it is not an ordinary use of the phrase. Id. Rather, the
`
`phrase "abstract idea" concerns building blocks of ingenuity (id. at 2335), fundamental economic
`
`practices (id. at 2356), or the basic tools of science (id. at 2354).
`
`Thus, the kind of abstract ideas that the Court is concerned with are concepts that are
`
`fundamental or essential to science and commerce. They are not the ordinary types of abstract
`
`concepts that are essential to every invention. For example, the Court cautioned:
`
`[a]t the same time, we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest
`it swallow all of patent law. At some level, all inventions...embody, use, reflect,
`rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. Thus, an
`invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an
`abstract concept.
`
`Alice at 2354.
`
`#48464995 v2
`
`TT0006195
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 12 of 30
`
`Application Serial No. 14/506,822
`Attorney Docket No. 127072.00121
`Page 15 of 24
`
`In this case, it is readily apparent that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
`
`Rather, construed as a whole, the claims are directed to a system that creates a first composite
`
`digital media from a plurality of media assets, and then selects a second plurality of media assets
`
`based on very specific rules and information (e.g., internal narrative traits preference topology)
`
`relative to a specific user. Using the first and second media assets, an entirely new user-specific
`
`media stream is created and then transmitted to the user. See Claim 8 (as amended). This, of
`
`course, is not an abstract idea identified by the courts, as the Office appears to allege by simply
`
`citing Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl, B//ski v. Kappos. Office Action at 6.
`
`The Office's attention is directed to the case of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981),
`
`which states
`
`[t]he claims were drawn to a method for computing an "alaiiii limit." An "alarm
`limit" is simply a number and the Court concluded that the application sought to
`protect a formula for computing this number...All that it provides is a formula for
`computing an updated alarm limit. In contrast, the respondents here do not seek to
`patent a mathematical formula. Instead, they seek patent protection for a process
`of curing synthetic rubber.
`
`Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981).
`
`As such, construing the claims as a whole would require the Office to look to the
`
`preamble. In Ex parte Lai, Appeal No. 2014-000567 (PTAB Jan. 7, 2016), the PTAB reversed
`
`the § 101 rejection because the preamble recited an "article of manufacture," meeting the first
`
`step of the § 101 analysis, and because the examiner failed to provide sufficient evidence to
`
`support the second step of the Alice analysis. In essence, since the preamble was directed to a
`
`statutory class of invention, the first prong was satisfied and, without evidence to support the
`
`second prong, the PTAB could not sustain the rejection. Likewise, in the present case, the
`
`#48464995 v2
`
`TT00061 96
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 13 of 30
`
`Application Serial No. 14/506,822
`Attorney Docket No. 127072.00121
`Page 16 of 24
`
`preamble recites a system of creating a user specific composite digital media, i.e. a tangible item.
`
`See Claim 8. Thus, the Office has failed at the first prong of the Alice analysis.
`
`(2) Even if the claims include an abstract idea, they represent significantly more than a claim to
`the Abstract Idea
`
`In determining whether the claims, although directed to an abstract idea, are nonetheless
`
`patent eligible, the Court in Alice instructed:
`
`[i]n applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim
`the building blocks of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building
`blocks into something more, thereby transform[ing] them into a patent-eligible
`invention. The former would risk disproportionately tying up the use of the
`underlying ideas, and are therefore ineligible for patent protection. The latter
`pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible for the
`monopoly granted under our patent laws.
`
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 — 55 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
`
`First, as pointed out herein, claim 8 includes substantial, meaningful limitations that
`
`require a conclusion that the claim "integrate[s] the building blocks into something more, thereby
`
`transform[ing] them into a patent-eligible invention." Id. The claimed system for pulling
`
`multiple media assets, at least one of which is custom tailored and then creating an entirely new
`
`media stream is clearly more than an abstract idea or fundamental economic practice.
`
`Applicant submits that the Office is oversimplifying the subject matter of claim 8. For
`
`example, as acknowledged by the Office, claim 8 is directed to transmitting a user-specific
`
`composite digital media stream to at least one user. As such, the additional limitations of claim
`
`8, identifying a first media, retrieving user information (e.g., internal narrative traits), selecting a
`
`second media, determining a portion of the second media to insert into the first, and creating a
`
`user-specific composite digital media cannot merely be insignificant pre-solution activities
`
`because the solution could not be achieved without these activities. As such, these limitations
`
`#48464995 v2
`
`TT0006197
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 14 of 30
`
`Application Serial No. 14/506,822
`Attorney Docket No. 127072.00121
`Page 17 of 24
`
`specifically add to the claimed system of claim 8 and amount to significantly more than the
`
`judicial exception of an abstract idea.
`
`Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 8, as amended and properly understood,
`
`is readily distinguishable from what is routine and conventional and should be considered to
`
`represent an inventive concept required for patent subject matter eligibility. Applicant submits
`
`that the claims are clearly not routine and conventional in the current state of the art.
`
`Finally, the Office's attention is directed toward Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Opennet
`
`Telecom, Inc., No. 2015-1180 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016), which Applicant submits provides
`
`further guidance regarding the current claims. Claim 1 of the patent at issue in Amdocs recites,
`
`"[a] computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium for processing
`
`network accounting information comprising: computer code for receiving from a first source a
`
`first network accounting record; computer code for correlating the first network accounting
`
`record with accounting information available from a second source; and computer code for
`
`using the accounting information with which the first network accounting record is
`
`correlated to enhance the first network accounting record." Amdocs at 10.
`
`Applicant submits that the claim in Amdocs shares many of the features of current claim
`
`8. Specifically, both gather information (e.g., retrieve user information), correlate the
`
`information from at least two sources (e.g., a first plurality of digital media assets and a second
`
`plurality), and use the secondary information to enhance the first record (e.g., create a user-
`
`specific composite digital media stream). The Court in Amdocs held that the "claim entails an
`
`unconventional technological solution to a technological problem." Id. at 11. The Court further
`
`held that the claims were "similar to the claims of DDR Holdings and BASCOM [and] when the
`
`#48464995 v2
`
`TT0006198
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 15 of 30
`
`Application Serial No. 14/506,822
`Attorney Docket No. 127072.00121
`Page 18 of 24
`
`claim limitations were considered individually and as an ordered combination, they recited an
`
`invention that is not merely the 'routine or conventional use' of technology." Id. at 13.
`
`Thus, based on the clear parallels between Applicant's claim 8 and the patent at issue in
`
`Amdocs, as well as the additional arguments presented above, Applicant respectfully requests
`
`that the § 101 rejections be reconsidered and withdrawn.
`
`In light of these arguments, Applicant asserts that the subject matter of claim 8 does in
`
`fact rise to override the routine and conventional sequence of events performed by a computer
`
`and, as such, defines significantly more than an abstract idea. It should be noted that claim 22
`
`includes similar limitations to claim 8 and, as such, the above arguments directed to claim 8
`
`including significantly more than an abstract idea are applicable to claim 22 as well.
`
`Accordingly, claims 1 and 22 are not directed to an abstract idea and Applicant
`
`respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection. Additionally, because claims 9-21, and 23-30
`
`depend upon claims 1 and 22, which are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, each is also
`
`patentable, and Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`Rejections Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
`
`The Office has rejected claims 8-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for allegedly failing to
`
`comply with the written description requirement. Specifically, the Office alleges that the claims
`
`contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to
`
`reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed
`
`invention at the time the application was filed. See Office Action at 6.
`
`The Office states that there is no support for the concept of -a processing device in the
`
`specification." See id. The Office is respectfully reminded that although "Where should be clear
`
`#48464995 v2
`
`TT0006199
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 16 of 30
`
`Application Serial No. 14/506,822
`Attorney Docket No. 127072.00121
`Page 19 of 24
`
`support or antecedent basis in the specification for the terminology used in the claims [that] exact
`
`terms need not be used in haec verba to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
`
`1 12(a)." MPEP 1302.01; quoting Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see
`
`also 37 CFR 1.121(e) (which merely requires substantial correspondence between the language
`
`of the claims and the language of the specification.)
`
`As the Office is no doubt aware, the ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be
`
`evidenced by a variety of sources, including "the words of the claims themselves, the remainder
`
`of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific
`
`principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303, 13 14 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Applicant submits that a CPU or Central Processing Unit as
`
`disclosed in paragraph [0101] and shown in FIG. 13 of the specification as published, clearly
`
`provides sufficient support for "a processing device," as recited in the claims. As would be
`
`understood by one skilled in the art, traditionally, the term "CPU" refers to a processor, more
`
`specifically, to its processing unit and control unit (CU), distinguishing these core elements of a
`
`computer from external components such as main memory and I/0 circuitry. See Kuck, David,
`
`Computers and Computations, Vol 1. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 12 (1978).
`
`Accordingly, Applicant disagrees with the Office's statement that "[t]here is no support
`
`for the concept of "a processing device." Nonetheless, Applicant has amended the claims herein
`
`to specifically recite "central processing unit." Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the
`
`§112(a) rejections associated with claims 8-30 be withdrawn.
`
`#48464995 v2
`
`TT0006200
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 17 of 30
`
`Application Serial No. 14/506,822
`Attorney Docket No. 127072.00121
`Page 20 of 24
`
`Rejections Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
`
`The Office has rejected claims 8-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite for
`
`failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant
`
`regards as the invention. Specifically, the Office cites various limitations that appear to lack
`
`antecedent basis. See Office Action at 7-8. Applicant has amended the claims herein in a manner
`
`believed to overcome the outstanding §112(b) rejections. Accordingly, it is respectfully
`
`requested that the §112(b) rejections associated with claims 8-30 be withdrawn
`
`Rejections Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §_§ 102 and 103
`
`Claim 8
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 8, particularly as amended, is
`
`patentable over Haberman in view of Zamir and Achlioptas at least because the combination of
`
`references, whether considered alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest each and every
`
`recitation of amended claim 8. Specifically, Applicant submits that the references fail to teach or
`
`suggest, inter alia, at least the following language of claim 8:
`
`• retrieve user information for at least one user, the user information containing one or
`more user attributes for the at least one user, wherein the one or more attributes
`comprises an internal narrative traits preference topology.
`
`The Office relies on Haberman to reject the majority of Applicant's claims. As best
`
`understood, Haberman relates to "dynamically creating individualized, multi-media messages
`
`and [delivering] the messages to specific target groups or individual viewers." Haberman at
`
`Abstract. Haberman creates the individualized messages -based upon rules applied to each user's
`
`profile data and the available library of media segments."/d.at 4:36-38. However, Haberman fails
`
`to disclose with any level of detail how the "profile data" is collected. The most relevant portion
`
`#48464995 v2
`
`TT0006201
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 73-26 Filed 04/23/21 Page 18 of 30
`
`Application Serial No. 14/506,822
`Attorney Docket No. 127072.00121
`Page 21 of 24
`
`of Haberman, as it relates to profile creation states, "[u]pon commencement, the profile server
`
`gathers profile information on the user. The profile server can obtain profile information from
`
`many sources, including databases, as previously described." Id. at 15:31-34. Thus, no detail is
`
`provided for how the user profile data is obtained. Applicant respectfully requests the Office
`
`provide a more thorough explanation of the relevant portions of Haberman.
`
`Based on the lack of information collection in Haberman, Applicant further submits that
`
`nothing in Haberman can be said to teach or suggest, "retrieve user information for at least one
`
`user, the user information containing one or more user attributes for the at least one user,
`
`wherein the one or more attributes comprises an internal narr