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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to: Application filed on April 12th, 2025
Claims 1-20 are pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weldermariam, US PG PUB#2020/00117344 A1 (hereinafter Weldermariam) in view of Dave, US PG PUB# 2017/0031886 A1 (hereinafter Dave).
As for independent claim 1:
Weldemariam discloses a method for managing a presentation of a dynamic profile photo, the method comprising:
receiving contextual information associated with one or more users (0036-0039, 0054, Weldermariam discloses receiving contextual information associated with the users such as social media data, viewer analytics, comments and interactions data);
determining that the contextual information is consistent with a predetermined contextual action (Weldemariam discloses determining that the contextual information is consistent with a predetermined contextual action by applying predefined rules or learned models to the contextual information 0017–0023);
identifying a dynamic profile photo associated with the predetermined contextual information (Weldemariam teaches identifying a dynamic profile photo associated with the predetermined contextual information, including selecting or generating a profile photo based on the determined context in 0026, 0057);
presenting, in response to the determination that the contextual information is consistent with the predetermined contextual action, the dynamic profile photo to the one or more users (0044-00445, Weldemariam discloses automatically displaying the photo within a user’s profile area);
Weldemariam does not disclose wherein the dynamic profile photo is presented in specific areas associated with the one or more users profile, and the contextual information is presented in comment areas. Dave discloses wherein the dynamic profile photo is presented in specific areas associated with the one or more users profile, and the contextual information is presented in comment areas in 0011, 0018, 0026-0029. In the cited section Dave discloses presenting contextual information, including comments and recommendations, within designated profile presentation regions. Dave also discloses comment areas associated with a user profile. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Weldemariam to incorporate presenting contextual information in the comment area as taught by Dave, thus allow expressiveness and clarity of the profile photo (Dave, 0011, 0018).
As for dependent claim 2:
Weldemariam – Dave discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating one or more dynamic profile photos based on the received contextual information; and associating the one or more dynamic profile photos with one or more predetermined contextual actions (Weldemariam, 0017-0023, 0059, see generating dynamic profile photo based on the contextual data).
As for dependent claim 3:
Weldemariam – Dave discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the contextual information includes text associated with one or more comments provided by a user of the one or more users (0024, Weldemariam discloses analyzing textual comments and feedback as contextual inputs; Dave 0011).
As for dependent claim 4:
Weldemariam – Dave discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the contextual information includes an interaction with at least one of a control or element displayed at a graphical user interface (0047, 0048, Weldemariam discloses using user interaction data (engagement and interface interactions) as contextual info).
As for dependent claim 5:
Weldemariam – Dave discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: analyzing the received contextual information to identify one or more parameters; based on the one or more parameters, identifying a context identifier; and identifying the dynamic profile photo based on the identified context identifier (0022, Dave discloses identifying intent or context identifiers used to control profile presentation).
As for dependent claim 6:
Weldemariam – Dave discloses the method of claim 1, wherein presenting the dynamic profile photo includes automatically presenting the dynamic profile photo to a user associated with the dynamic profile photo (0024, 0062, Weldemariam shows automatically presenting and updating profile photos without user intervention)
As for dependent claim 7:
Weldemariam – Dave discloses the method of claim 6, wherein automatically presenting the dynamic profile photo comprises: automatically updating a profile photo of a user associated with the dynamic profile photo; and presenting the dynamic profile photo to the user (0025-0026, Weldemariam discloses automatic updating and replacement of profile photos based on context).
As for dependent claim 8:
Weldemariam – Dave discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: presenting a first dynamic profile photo to a first user of the one or more users; and presenting a second dynamic profile photo to a second user of the one or more users, wherein the first dynamic profile photo is different than the second dynamic profile photo.
As for independent claim 9:
Claim 9 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for dependent claims 10-16:
Claims 10-16 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claims 2-8 and are rejected along the same rationale.
As for independent claim 17:
Claim 17 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for dependent claims 18-20:
Claims 18-20 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claims 2-4 and are rejected along the same rationale.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 PM.
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, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. 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.
/David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172