DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 89-96 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Modiri and Billmaier. The Examiner further notes that Billmaier also discloses the weighting elements recited in claims 85-88, therefore a new grounds of rejection has been entered in view of Modiri and Billmaier.
Claim Objections
Claim 85 is objected to because of the following informalities: “evaluate the first data indicative the one or more keywords” should read “evaluate the first data indicative of the one or more keywords”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 85-88 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Modiri et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0025034) in view of Billmaier et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0104058).
Referring to claim 85, Modiri discloses receiving, via a search function, first data indicative of one or more keywords (see Paragraph 0012 for the user specifying their interests, for example, note user selection of the search term “Edward Norton”).
Modiri also discloses evaluating the first data indicative of the one or more keywords with respect to one or more criteria comprising a plurality of criteria (see Paragraph 0012 evaluating the data to determine movies Edward Norton starred in that have a rating of PG-13 or below).
Modiri also discloses that based on the evaluation, identify one or more content elements having a prescribed relationship to both the one or more keywords and the one or more criteria, the identification of the one or more content elements having the prescribed relationship to both the one or more keywords and the one or more criteria comprising identification of at least one content element with a highest level of similarity to both the one or more keywords and the on or more criteria (see Paragraphs 0012-0013 for determining the results to present to the user or provide alerts to the user based on the search query).
Modiri also discloses causing display of at least a portion of the one or more content elements, the causation of the display of at least the portion of the one or more content elements comprising causation of display of the at least one content element with the highest level of similarity (see Paragraphs 0012-0013 for presenting content items of interest to the user).
Modiri fails to teach that the criteria is associated with respective different weighted values, wherein the weighted values are used in accordance with the one or more criteria to identify one or more content elements for display to the user.
Billmaier discloses that the criteria is associated with respective different weighted values, wherein the weighted values are used in accordance with the one or more criteria to identify one or more content elements for display to the user (see Paragraph 0096).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the content selection system, as taught Modiri, using the threshold level of popularity functionality, as taught by Billmaier, for the purpose of providing an intelligent technique that ensures relevant search results (see the bottom of Paragraph 0003 of Billmaier).
Referring to claim 86, Modiri also discloses that the one or more criteria comprises a geographic location associated with the computerized apparatus (see Paragraph 0008 and the bottom of Paragraph 0013).
Referring to claim 87, Modiri discloses all of the limitations in claim 85, but fails to teach enabling a user of the computerized apparatus to indicate whether individual ones of the at least portion of the one or more content elements are appropriately-suited for the one or more keywords.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that a user can review content elements in a program guide and eliminate or add listings that the user finds appropriate based on a keyword search performed by the user.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the search engine system, as taught by Modiri and Billmaier, using the user content element review functionality, as taught by the Examiner’s statement of Official Notice, for the purpose of assuring any content elements that inappropriate for a young audience is prevented from being display on the program guide.
Referring to claim 88, Modiri discloses collecting data from a plurality of content sources (see Paragraph 0013 for receiving data from a plurality of sources) and evaluating of the first data with respect to the second data relating to the one or more criteria (see the rejection of claim 85).
Billmaier discloses identifying one or more content elements having a threshold level of popularity based on the collected data (see Paragraphs 0042, 0044, 0047 and Claims 8 and 23).
Claims 89-90, 92 and 94-95 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Modiri et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0025034) in view of Billmaier et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0104058).
Referring to claim 89, Modiri discloses a computerized method of utilizing a recommendation search engine to recommend one or more content elements to a user via a content distribution network (see Paragraph 0012 for allowing a user to specify their interests).
Modiri also discloses receiving first data indicative one or more keywords via search function, the first data originating from a computerized client device configured to execute the search function (see Paragraph 0012 for the user specifying their interests, for example, note user selection of the search term “Edward Norton”).
Modiri also discloses collecting data from a plurality of content sources (see Paragraph 0013 for receiving data from a plurality of sources).
Modiri also discloses evaluating the first data with respect to second data relating to one or more criteria (see Paragraph 0012 evaluating the data to determine movies Edward Norton starred in that have a rating of PG-13 or below).
Modiri also discloses that based on the evaluating, identifying one or more content elements having a prescribed relationship to the one or more keywords and the one or more criteria (see Paragraphs 0012-13 for determining the results to present to the user or provide alerts to the user based on the search query).
Modiri also discloses providing the one or more content elements to the computerized client device (see Paragraphs 0012-0013 for presenting content items of interest to the user).
Modiri fails to teach identifying one or more content elements having a threshold level of popularity based on the collected data.
Billmaier discloses identifying one or more content elements having a threshold level of popularity based on the collected data (see Paragraphs 0042, 0044, 0047 and Claims 8 and 23).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the content selection system, as taught Modiri, using the threshold level of popularity functionality, as taught by Billmaier, for the purpose of providing an intelligent technique that ensures relevant search results (see the bottom of Paragraph 0003 of Billmaier).
Referring to claim 90, Modiri also discloses the evaluating of the first data with respect to the second data relating to the one or more criteria comprises utilizing data relating to a geographic location associated with the computerized client device and that the identifying of the one or more content elements having the prescribed relationship to the one or more keywords and the one or more criteria comprises identifying one or more content elements that are geographically relevant to the computerized client device and relate to the one or more keywords (see Paragraph 0008 and the bottom of Paragraph 0013).
Referring to claim 92, Modiri discloses accessing a database to obtain data representative of a user profile, the user profile comprising user-specific data specific to at least one user of the computerized client device, wherein the evaluating of the first data with respect to the second data relating to the one or more criteria comprises evaluating the first data with respect to the user-specific data (see Paragraph 0013 for using user parameters 117 to determine a list of programs to present to the user and alerts for programs that are of interest to the user).
Referring to claim 94, Modiri discloses providing of the one or more content elements to the computerized client device comprises providing the one or more content elements to the computerized client device within a playlist of a plurality of content elements, the plurality of content elements comprising other content elements which do not have the prescribed relationship to the one or more keywords and the one or more criteria (see Paragraph 0012 for additionally suggesting the Jay Leno show, which are not movies that Edward Norton starred in, wherein movies and talk shows do not have a prescribed relationship).
Referring to claim 95, Modiri discloses enabling a user of the computerized client device to select or enter the one or more criteria (see the bottom of Paragraph 0013).
Claim 91 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Modiri et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0025034) in view of Billmaier et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0104058) in further view of Rhoads et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0055689).
Referring to claim 91, Modiri and Billmaier discloses all of the limitations of claim 89, but fails to teach collecting device-specific data from the computerized client device, wherein the evaluating of the first data with respect to the second data relating to the one or more criteria comprises evaluating the first data with respect to the device-specific data.
Rhoads discloses collecting device-specific data from the computerized client device, wherein the evaluating of the first data with respect to the second data relating to the one or more criteria comprises evaluating the first data with respect to the device-specific data (see Paragraphs 0030-0033).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the content selection system, as taught Modiri and Billmaier, using the device-specific data, as taught by Rhoads, for the purpose of distinguishing between different display protocols for which the data needs to be formatted for proper rendering (see Paragraph 0030 of Rhoads).
Claim 93 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Modiri et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0025034) in view of Billmaier et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0104058) in further view of Baxter (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20100154005) .
Referring to claim 93, Modiri and Billmaier discloses all of the limitations of claim 89, but fails to teach receiving of the first data indicative the one or more keywords via the search function comprises receiving data indicative of one or more keywords collectively formed by one or more user-entered keyword elements and one or more keyword elements generated via an auto-complete function.
Baxter discloses receiving of the first data indicative the one or more keywords via the search function comprises receiving data indicative of one or more keywords collectively formed by one or more user-entered keyword elements and one or more keyword elements generated via an auto-complete function (see Paragraph 0047).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the content selection system, as taught Modiri and Billmaier, using the autocomplete functionality, as taught by Baxter, for the purpose of providing a list of potential keywords matching the entered letters to provide additional options for selection by a user (see Paragraphs 0002 and 0047 of Baxter).
Claim 96 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Modiri et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0025034) in view of Billmaier et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0104058) in further view of Blas (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0216158).
Referring to claim 96, Modiri and Billmaier teaches all of the limitations of claim 89, as well as filtering out programs to not present to the user for selection, therefore providing the one or more content elements to the computerized device based on respective correlation levels of the one or more content elements to the one or more keywords and the one or more criteria (see Paragraph 0012 presenting Edward Norton television programs based on keywords (actor name) and one or more criteria (rating)), but fails to teach that the one or more content elements are presented in a prioritized order.
Blas discloses presenting a list of preferred programs in a prioritized list (see Paragraph 0051).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the presentation of the content elements, as taught by Modiri and Billmaier, using the prioritized order of content elements in a presented list, as taught by Blas, for the purpose of allowing a viewer to quickly identify programs of interest (see Paragraph 0008 of Blas).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 77-84 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON P SALCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7301. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am-10:00pm M-F (Flex Schedule).
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/Jason Salce/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Jason P Salce
Senior Examiner
Art Unit 2421
July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights