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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been fully considered and are
persuasive. Upon further consideration, and in view of applicant’s amendments, a new grounds of
rejection is made in view of newly cited references Hoal in view of McClain, Li in view of Smith, and Zhang in view of Li.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to claims 1-20 without significantly more. The following is Examiner's analysis of the claimed invention under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG)
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 1 recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 1 recites “generating, based on the categorization indication, a stored association between the content post and at least one of a category of the set of categories or a subcategory of an associated set of subcategories for the category” which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. The step of “generating a stored association” covers performance of the limitation in the mind; therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites “identifying, based on the indication of the at least one of the category or the subcategory and the stored association, the post within the hierarchical content store” which falls within the “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” grouping of abstract ideas. The step of identifying the post within the hierarchical content store” is content filtering; therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 1 recites “a system, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 recites “receiving, from a first user device of a user, an indication to generate a content post within a hierarchical content store, wherein the indication comprises content for the content post and a categorization indication identifying at least one of a category or subcategory for the content post, the hierarchical content store comprises a set of categories, and each category of the set of categories has an associated set of subcategories; generating, in response to the indication, the content post within the hierarchical content store by storing the content for the content post in the hierarchical content store; receiving, from a second user device, a request for content from the hierarchical content store, wherein the request comprises an indication of at least one of the category or the subcategory” which is mere necessary data gathering because all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output.
Claim 1 recites “within the hierarchical content store” which amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 recites “providing, in response to the request for content, the identified post for display by the second user device” which is insignificant-extra solution activity tangentially related to the invention.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984).
The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Claim 1 recites “providing, in response to the request for content, the identified post for display by the second user device” which is transmitting data over a network. The courts have determined transmitting data over a network is well‐understood, routine, and conventional functionality when claimed in a merely generic manner (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).
There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claim 1 is rejected as being directed to nonpatentable subject matter under §101. This rejection applies equally to the dependent claims. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed briefly below:
Regarding claim 2
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein the set of operations further comprises generating another association between the post and at least one of a user profile of the user and a subject matter entity (SME) profile of the user” which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the request for content further comprises an indication of one or more filter criteria and identifying the post within the hierarchical content store further comprises determining the post satisfies the one or more filter criteria” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 4
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein the set of operations further comprises generating an association between the post and a vendor profile of the hierarchical content store” which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein providing the identified post further comprises: identifying, based on an association between the post and a vendor profile within the hierarchical content store, a vendor corresponding to the post; determining, for the vendor, a referral identifier” which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “processing the post to embed the referral identifier, thereby causing the second user device to provide the referral identifier when requesting content from a computing device of the vendor” which is insignificant-extra solution activity tangentially related to the invention.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim recites “processing the post to embed the referral identifier, thereby causing the second user device to provide the referral identifier when requesting content from a computing device of the vendor” which is transmitting data over a network. The courts have determined transmitting data over a network is well‐understood, routine, and conventional functionality when claimed in a merely generic manner (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362).
Regarding claim 6
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein the request for content further comprises a search query and identifying the post within the hierarchical content store further comprises determining the post is relevant to the search query” which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein determining the post is relevant to the search query comprises at least one of performing keyword searching within content of the post or evaluating a semantic similarity between the content and the search query” which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a machine (system).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the post comprises at least one of textual content, audio content, image content, or video content” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly
more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an
ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a
computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional
computer implementation.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoal et al (US 20080282324 A1) hereafter Hoal in view of McClain et al (US 20050021796 A1) hereafter McClain
Regarding claim 1, Hoal teaches a system, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising: receiving, from a first user device of a user, an indication to generate a content post within a hierarchical content store, wherein the indication comprises content for the content post and a categorization indication identifying at least one of a category or subcategory for the content post(Para 0053, The SNS allows all users to create and post age-appropriate content defined by categories and subcategories); generating, in response to the indication, the content post within the hierarchical content store by storing the content for the content post in the hierarchical content store (Para 0053, These categories and subcategories are defined as "spheres"); generating, within the hierarchical content store and based on the categorization indication, a stored association between the content post and at least one of a category of the set of categories or a subcategory of an associated set of subcategories for the category (Para 0053, The SNS allows all users to create and post age-appropriate content defined by categories and subcategories); receiving, from a second user device, a request for content from the hierarchical content store, wherein the request comprises an indication of at least one of the category or the subcategory (Para 0106, The search dialogue allows the user to search the SNS database 245 for other users, spheres, interests, groups, activities and/or events scheduled in specific geographical regions); identifying, based on the indication of the at least one of the category or the subcategory and the stored association, the post within the hierarchical content store (Para 0106, The search dialogue allows the user to search the SNS database 245 for other users, spheres, interests, groups, activities and/or events scheduled in specific geographical regions); and providing, in response to the request for content, the identified post for display by the second user device (Para 0106, The user interface may display and/or synchronize a user's SNS terminal information with SNS database information).
Hoal does not appear to explicitly teach the hierarchical content store comprises a set of categories, and each category of the set of categories has an associated set of subcategories.
In analogous art, McClain teaches the hierarchical content store comprises a set of categories, and each category of the set of categories has an associated set of subcategories (Para 0008, The ratings can comprise a set of categories and sub-categories into which certain content falls based upon a ratings service' subjective criteria). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoal to include the teaching of McClain. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to filter content, as taught by McClain (a system and method for filtering of web-based content).
Regarding claim 2, Hoal in view of McClain teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the set of operations further comprises generating another association between the post and at least one of a user profile of the user and a subject matter entity (SME) profile of the user (Hoal, Para 0019, In a different preferred embodiment the method further comprises creating a profile for an eligible first user).
Regarding claim 3, Hoal in view of McClain teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the request for content further comprises an indication of one or more filter criteria and identifying the post within the hierarchical content store further comprises determining the post satisfies the one or more filter criteria (Hoal, Para 0124, The SNS 210 uses a collaborative filtering algorithm).
Regarding claim 4, Hoal in view of McClain teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the set of operations further comprises generating an association between the post and a vendor profile of the hierarchical content store (Hoal, Para 0135, The SNS 210 in concert with the functions of its components and the personalized user interface 304 and the databases contained therein can provide approved third party vendors, retailers, organizations, institutions, etc. direct and individual access to individual users with particularly identified interests 645, 655, 665 for the sale, promotion, research, etc. of commercial and non-commercial products and services).
Regarding claim 5, Hoal in view of McClain teaches the system of claim 1, wherein providing the identified post further comprises: identifying, based on an association between the post and a vendor profile within the hierarchical content store, a vendor corresponding to the post; determining, for the vendor, a referral identifier; and processing the post to embed the referral identifier, thereby causing the second user device to provide the referral identifier when requesting content from a computing device of the vendor (Hoal, Para 0135, The SNS 210 in concert with the functions of its components and the personalized user interface 304 and the databases contained therein can provide approved third party vendors, retailers, organizations, institutions, etc. direct and individual access to individual users with particularly identified interests 645, 655, 665 for the sale, promotion, research, etc. of commercial and non-commercial products and services).
Regarding claim 6, Hoal in view of McClain teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the request for content further comprises a search query and identifying the post within the hierarchical content store further comprises determining the post is relevant to the search query (Hoal, Para 0106, The search dialogue allows the user to search the SNS database 245 for other users, spheres, interests, groups, activities and/or events scheduled in specific geographical regions).
Regarding claim 7, Hoal in view of McClain teaches the system of claim 6, wherein determining the post is relevant to the search query comprises at least one of performing keyword searching within content of the post or evaluating a semantic similarity between the content and the search query (Hoal, Para 0106, The search dialogue allows the user to search the SNS database 245 for other users, spheres, interests, groups, activities and/or events scheduled in specific geographical regions).
Regarding claim 8, Hoal in view of McClain teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the post comprises at least one of textual content, audio content, image content, or video content (Hoal, Para 0053, The SNS allows all users to create and post age-appropriate content defined by categories and subcategories, e.g., music, TV shows, movies/film, romance/dating/relationships, sports, online games, art, photography, fashion, computers 8: technology, video creation, photography, fitness, travel, meeting other boys/girls).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 20020072808 A1) hereafter Li in view of Smith et al (US 20100228432 A1) hereafter Smith
Regarding claim 9, Li teaches a method for generating a subject matter entity (SME) profile within a hierarchical content store for an SME, the method comprising: receiving, via a user interface of a user device, an indication to create a new SME profile at a content platform, wherein the SME has an associated unique identifier (Para 0061, a service associate can specify a particular vehicle via keypunching the VIN number or via VIN wireless bar code scanner); obtaining, by the user device, SME information corresponding to the SME (Para 0062, The service history associated with the vehicle independent of who had owned the vehicle (i.e., based upon VIN number) is reviewable by activating button 316.); providing the SME information and the unique identifier associated with the SME to the content platform, thereby causing the content platform to generate a new SME profile comprising the SME information and information pre-populated by the content platform according to the unique identifier associated with the SME (Para 0061, a service associate can specify a particular vehicle via keypunching the VIN number or via VIN wireless bar code scanner that prepopulate these data fields as shown by reference numeral 300); and providing, via the user interface, an indication that the new SME profile has been created (Para 0063, A work order can be assembled for the vehicle based upon why the customer brought the vehicle in for servicing).
Li does not appear to explicitly teach providing the SME information and the unique identifier associated with the SME to the content platform for validation according to the unique identifier associated with the SME.
In analogous art, Smith teaches providing the SME information and the unique identifier associated with the SME to the content platform for validation according to the unique identifier associated with the SME (Para 0108, in which the contents of an EDR data file obtained from the vehicle is validated). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to include the teaching of Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to analyze correct information, as taught by Smith (Para 0108, Such validation includes, for example, a check of the VIN number to confirm that the file is for the correct vehicle to be analyzed).
Regarding claim 10, Li in view of Smith teaches the method of claim 9, wherein: obtaining the SME information comprises presenting a set of properties and receiving, via the user interface, user input of a value corresponding to each property of the set of properties; and the SME information comprises values corresponding to the set of properties (Li, Para 0076, By providing additional relevant metadata to the search engine 270, the search is not restricted to the exact user's initial input).
Regarding claim 11, Li in view of Smith teaches the method of claim 9, wherein obtaining SME information comprises at least one of receiving user selection of media on the user device or capturing media at the user device to include as SME information for the new SME profile (Li, Para 0076, By providing additional relevant metadata to the search engine 270, the search is not restricted to the exact user's initial input).
Regarding claim 12, Li in view of Smith teaches the method of claim 9, wherein: the information pre-populated by the content platform comprises specific information for the SME; and obtaining the SME information further comprises receiving, via the user interface, user customization of the information pre-populated by the content platform (Li, Para 0076, By providing additional relevant metadata to the search engine 270, the search is not restricted to the exact user's initial input).
Regarding claim 13, Li in view of Smith teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the SME information comprises at least one of textual content, audio content, image content, or video content relating to the SME (Li, Para 0013, Broad-based search engines such as Google or Yahoo access a very large numbers of web pages using a Web crawler).
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 20070255755 A1) hereafter Zhang in view of Li et al (US 20150067737 A1) hereafter Li
Regarding claim 14, Zhang teaches a method for providing content in response to a request from a search crawler of a search platform, the method comprising: receiving, from the search crawler, a request for content from a hierarchical content store of a content platform (Para 0031, Content-based modality 110 begins by obtaining videos obtained by a web crawler); identifying, from the hierarchical content store, responsive content for the request for content, wherein the responsive content comprises a plurality of nodes from the hierarchical content store (Para 0031, A video analysis component 135 locates representative video keyframes); generating metadata for the identified responsive content based on one or more associations stored in the hierarchical content store for the responsive content, wherein the one or more associations associate the responsive content with at least one of a hierarchy node or a profile of the hierarchical content store (Para 0047, The crawler 205 forwards a new video 265 of interest to a dual modality categorization model 170, e.g., to the metadata-based categorization model 160 which generates a metadata-based categorization output 210 and to the content-based classification model 165 which generates a content-based categorization output 215).
Zhang does not appear to explicitly teach enriching the responsive content with the generated metadata to generate enriched content that includes the generated metadata as supplemental content responsive to the request for content from the search crawler and corresponding to at least one of a keyword, a topic, or information from the at least one hierarchy node or the profile; and providing, in response to the request for content, the enriched content.
In analogous art, Li teaches enriching the responsive content with the generated metadata to generate enriched content that includes the generated metadata as supplemental content responsive to the request for content from the search crawler and corresponding to at least one of a keyword, a topic, or information from the at least one hierarchy node or the profile; and providing, in response to the request for content, the enriched content (Para 0042, At step 302, the ERCM creating sub-unit 262 checks the content metadata received by the ERCM manager unit 261 and then uses one or more web-crawlers to retrieve additional metadata thereby enriching the original content metadata provided by the content provider). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to include the teaching of Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to provide an improved searching method, as taught by Li (Para 0039, the ERCMG 160 returns relevant extra-rich metadata to the search engine 170 comprising different language variations of the initial search request and the request is updated by adding this relevant extra-rich metadata to the initial search request).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang in view of Li teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the one or more associations comprise at least one of: an association between the responsive content and a user profile of the content platform; an association between the responsive content and a vendor profile of the content platform; an association between the responsive content and a subject matter entity (SME) profile of the content platform; an association between the responsive content and a category of the hierarchical content store; or an association between the responsive content and a subcategory for a given category of the hierarchical content store (Zhang, Para 0047, The crawler 205 forwards a new video 265 of interest to a dual modality categorization model 170, e.g., to the metadata-based categorization model 160 which generates a metadata-based categorization output 210 and to the content-based classification model 165 which generates a content-based categorization output 215).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang in view of Li teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the responsive content is identified from the hierarchical content store as a result of the one or more associations for the responsive content within the hierarchical content store (Zhang, Para 0047, The crawler 205 forwards a new video 265 of interest to a dual modality categorization model 170, e.g., to the metadata-based categorization model 160 which generates a metadata-based categorization output 210 and to the content-based classification model 165 which generates a content-based categorization output 215).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang in view of Li teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the request for content is received from the search crawler based on a listing of content generated by the content platform, wherein the listing of content is based on a content hierarchy of the hierarchical content store (Zhang, Para 0047, The crawler 205 forwards a new video 265 of interest to a dual modality categorization model 170, e.g., to the metadata-based categorization model 160 which generates a metadata-based categorization output 210 and to the content-based classification model 165 which generates a content-based categorization output 215).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang in view of Li teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the responsive content comprises content from a plurality of posts of the hierarchical content store and the plurality of posts are each related to at least one of a category or a subcategory for a given category of the hierarchical content store (Zhang, Para 0047, The crawler 205 forwards a new video 265 of interest to a dual modality categorization model 170, e.g., to the metadata-based categorization model 160 which generates a metadata-based categorization output 210 and to the content-based classification model 165 which generates a content-based categorization output 215).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang in view of Li teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the responsive content is further identified based on at least one of keyword matching or semantic similarity between the responsive content and the request for content (Zhang, Para 0074, The ERCM manager unit 261 searches ERCM database 266 and tables 267-268 to identify relevant metadata among the extra-rich metadata that match the first language variation of the search terms entered by the user 201).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang in view of Li teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the responsive content is accessible from the content platform by a user device for a user that does not have a user profile with the content platform (Zhang, Para 0039, When a user operates the RCU 150 and selects a menu, enter one or more search terms such as characters and/or numbers or performs an action via an application displayed on the display device 140).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm est.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights