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
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/2/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. On 6/2/26, Applicant did not amend the claims. Rather, Applicant presented remarks.
On page 11, Applicant states that “at a client device” of representative independent claim 1 is not addressed. However, see the additional citations at the beginning of the rejection of claim 1 for the “at a client device” that clearly show these features.
On page 9, Applicant states that “a pattern of use of the client device” of representative independent claim 1 is not addressed. However, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Applicant’s Spec. Examiner notes from the interview on 2/6/26 that pattern of use can be found in Applicant Spec at [34]. Examiner finds these sections form Applicant Spec helpful for interpreting this features:
“[3]…The user device can collect information describing the user's content consumption behavior and infer the user's preferences based on historical content viewing patterns.”;
“[0034] Stocks app 212 can personalize the content presented to the user based on personalization data 214... Personalization data 214 can include behavior-based personalization data, such as content sources, topics, etc., determined based on historical reading patterns of the user (e.g., what topics, sources, etc., that the user has consumed or typically consumed in the past).”;
“[35]… Personalization data 214 can be generated by stocks app 212 by monitoring user content consumption behavior over time.”;
“[0036] Personalization data 214 can be generated by other applications (e.g., news app 216) on user device 210… News app 216 can generate personalization data 214 by monitoring user content consumption behavior over time.”.
Hence, a pattern of use of the client device is interpreted as a client device or app on the client device monitoring the user to determine or infer user interests. And, an obviousness statement was used for these features. It is the combination of prior art that renders obvious these features. See the 103 obviousness feature rejection for these features below.
Also, on page 13, Applicant presents Remarks concerning dependent Claim 3. See the new 103 with the addition of Nomura that addresses these features.
Also, on page 14, Applicant presents Remarks concerning dependent Claim 20. See the added citations for dependent claim 20 below.
Also, the 101 is still found to apply. No new additional elements beyond the generic have been added. See the 101 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Independent Claims 1, 8, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are in a statutory category of invention. However, the claims recite detecting a request to display content; in response to detecting the request to display content, sending, a request for content; after sending the request for content, receiving, a first set of content items as a response to the request for content; and in response to receiving the first plurality of content items and as a response to the request to display content: in accordance with a determination that a first set of one or more criteria is satisfied, wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on, presenting, , a representation for each content item in a second set of one or more content items, wherein the first set of content items includes the second set of one or more content items; and in accordance with a determination that a second set of one or more criteria is satisfied, wherein the second set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on data, presenting, , a representation for each content item in a third set of one or more content items without presenting the second set of one or more content items, wherein the third set of one or more content items is different from the second set of one or more content items, wherein the first set of content items includes the third set of one or more content items, and wherein the second set of one or more criteria is different from the first set of one or more criteria, criteria as pattern of use. This is considered in the Abstract Idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity - advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements. The additional elements are considered a client device that includes a display, a server device different from the client device. These are considered generic. The generically recited computer elements do not add a practical application or meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations only perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Also, the additional hardware elements are: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions. Viewed separately or as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim does not provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea, in that there is no improvement to another technology or technical field, no improvement to the functioning of a computer, no application with, or by use of a particular machine, no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, no specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routing and conventional in the field, no unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, 15-20 are not considered directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. The use of metadata and anonymization is considered generic. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful description for the claimed invention, these elements do not confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not more than the abstract concepts identified in the claimed invention. Hence, these dependent claims are also rejected under 101.
Please see the 35 USC 101 section at the Examination Guidance and Training Materials page on the USPTO website.
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, 2, 4-9, 11-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fastlicht (20140304247) in view of Wyatt (12348596).
Claim 1, 8, 14. Fastlicht discloses a method for performing local content personalization, the method comprising:
at a client device that includes a display (Fig. 1c; “[17]… the process is initiated by a user accessing the search interface of a media presentation application, browser or similar application. The user can initiate a search via a search interface that is presented by the application (Block 101). The application can be executed by a user device, such as a personal computer, tablet, phone, or similar device. The search interface is generated by a client device application such as a channel browser or general purpose browser. “ and “[20]… In further embodiments, the browser on the client device formats the received content without direction from the content aggregation site.” And “[0021] The client device browser (e.g., a specialized channel browser or a general purpose browser, the specialized channel browser can be a mobile application or similar application or `app`) can further modify the search results by applying filters or similar channelization options that are defined by the user though a user interface of the client device browser.” and “[37]…In other embodiments, the content aggregation site does not maintain such a database, instead the user configuration information is maintained at the client device and applied by the browser.”):
detecting a request to display content ([4]; Fig. 3);
in response to detecting the request to display content, sending, to a server device different from the client device, a request for content (Fig. 3);
after sending the request for content, receiving, from the server device, a first set of content items as a response to the request for content ([21]; also note initial results at [30]).
In regards to the following features, Examiner notes from the interview on 2/6/26 that pattern of use can be found in Applicant Spec at [34]. Examiner finds these sections form Applicant Spec helpful for interpreting these features:
“[3]…The user device can collect information describing the user's content consumption behavior and infer the user's preferences based on historical content viewing patterns.”;
“[0034] Stocks app 212 can personalize the content presented to the user based on personalization data 214... Personalization data 214 can include behavior-based personalization data, such as content sources, topics, etc., determined based on historical reading patterns of the user (e.g., what topics, sources, etc., that the user has consumed or typically consumed in the past).”;
“[35]… Personalization data 214 can be generated by stocks app 212 by monitoring user content consumption behavior over time.”;
“[0036] Personalization data 214 can be generated by other applications (e.g., news app 216) on user device 210… News app 216 can generate personalization data 214 by monitoring user content consumption behavior over time.”.
Hence, a pattern of use of the client device is interpreted as a client device or app on the client device monitoring the user to determine or infer user interests.
Fastlicht further discloses in response to receiving the first plurality of content items and as a response to the request to display content:
in accordance with a determination that a first set of one or more criteria is satisfied, wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on a profile of the client device, presenting, via the display, a representation for each content item in a second set of one or more content items, wherein the first set of content items includes the second set of one or more content items ([21, 22] and see filter with criteria/preferences that are applied by the client device; also see [30] and filtering the initial results with criteria at the client device; also for profile, Fastlicht discloses presenting content based on subject matter, [21] and claim 3, and that this focused content can be based on profile “[33]… a user profile database 305 and similar databases and data structures to track content and configuration for focused content aggregation.”).
And, Fastlicht discloses that user profile, personalization, etc information can be stored at and applied by the client device:
“[0037] Other databases are related to the refining or personalization of channel data or the formatting of the channel data. A user profile database 305 can store user specific channel configuration information that defines filters and channelization options for each user defined channel... In other embodiments, the content aggregation site does not maintain such a database, instead the user configuration information is maintained at the client device and applied by the browser.”.
And, Fastlicht clearly discloses that this profile database on the user can track content and be used for focused/targeted content to the user, “[33]… a user profile database 305 and similar databases and data structures to track content and configuration for focused content aggregation.”.
Also, Fastlicht clearly discloses using prior search terms from databases which would include the user profile databases just cited, “[0043] …The topic suggestor can pull prior search terms or existing channels from the set of databases and return possible suggestions to the content aggregator to be returned to the client device”.
Hence, Fastlicht discloses a client device that stores user profile information and that this profile information is used to provide targeted/filtered/focused content.
While Fastlicht discloses focused/targeted content based on criteria like user profile that is at the client device (see preceding), Fastlicht does not explicitly disclose profile as a pattern of use. However, Examiner notes Applicant Spec at [34, 3] and Fastlicht discloses presenting content based on subject matter, [21] and claim 3, and that this focused content can be based on profile which is similar to pattern of use “[33]… a user profile database 305 and similar databases and data structures to track content and configuration for focused content aggregation.” And, Wyatt further discloses demographic info of a particular client device/appliance and that this includes historical data/usage characteristics/accumulated info on user requests/pattern of use of requests from that particular client device/appliance:
“The present invention provides an efficient system and method for identifying, caching, and delivering at high speed, the content that users in, for example, a multiple-dwelling unit are likely to want to download based on prior usage characteristics”, 1:45-51;
“…the request and associated informatics are recorded at step 315 for local channel information, and the content request and inferred informatics are sent, …For example, the informatics can comprise a combination of all or a part of the request data transmission, together with any information that has been accumulated on the local appliance regarding customer demographics for that appliance”, 5:20-35;
“…Likewise, as shown at step 515, demographic information associated with the network appliance 105 which has generated the current request is reviewed. That demographic information is historical data, developed based on prior requests that have been filtered by, for example, the process of FIG. 5, and then associated as metadata back to the remote network appliance that generated the current request.”, 7:15-25.
Hence, Wyatt clearly discloses usage characteristics/history of requests/accumulate information/pattern of use of client/appliance devices and content requests.
And Wyatt discloses the metadata describes the content requested 9:40-45 “The remote appliances produce metadata 710 describing the content requested by a consumer (not shown),” and is used to predict relevant content for the particular user(s), 1:65-2:20. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Wyatt’s tracking demographic info and historical data on user requests and particular devices/appliances and using this to better provide relevant content to Fastlicht’s tracking user profile of particular devices to better provide relevant content. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better provide relevant content based on particular user device.
The prior art further renders obvious in accordance with a determination that a second set of one or more criteria is satisfied, wherein the second set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on the pattern of use of the client device, presenting, via the display, a representation for each content item in a third set of one or more content items without presenting the second set of one or more content items, wherein the third set of one or more content items is different from the second set of one or more content items, wherein the first set of content items includes the third set of one or more content items, and wherein the second set of one or more criteria is different from the first set of one or more criteria (see Fastlicht at [21, 22] and note that multiple, different channels can be created and that multiple, different channels can exist, hence, there is one channel based on a first set of criteria at the client device and a second channel based on a different set of criteria at the client device; also see Fastlicht at [30] and filtering the initial results with criteria at the client device and note that this can be done on a channel by channel basis so multiple channels with different criteria can be created; also for pattern of use of the client device, see the obviousness statement above and the motivation is the same here).
Claim 2, 9, 15. Fastlicht further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on a historical content viewing pattern detected via the client device (see user profile and track at [33, 37, 45]; note suggestions and suggested channel at [44, 45]; note in [37] that user profile info is at client device).
Claim 4, 11, 17. Fastlicht further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: after sending the request for content, receiving, from the server device, data corresponding to the first set of content items as a response to the request for content, wherein the data is associated with the first set of content items, and wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied based on the data corresponding to the first set of content items ([21, 22, 30]). Fastlicht does not explicitly disclose using metadata associated with and separate from the content for the content filtering. However, Wyatt discloses presenting filtered content to a user (Fig. 1) and further discloses using metadata associated with and separate from the content for the content filtering (1:65-2:20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Wyatt’s use of metadata for content filtering to Fastlicht’s content filtering. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better content filter.
Claim 5. Fastlicht further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second set of one or more content items includes a plurality of different content items (Fig. 1c).
Claim 6, 12, 18. The prior art further renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the request to display content was detected via a first application, and wherein the pattern of use of the client device corresponds to a second application different from the first application (see Fastlicht and application at client device at [17] or app on mobile device at [21]; see Fastlicht and the first or different application is the website, network source, where the content comes from [3, 4, 19]; also for pattern of use, see the obviousness statement above and the motivation is the same here).
Claim 7, 13, 19. Fastlicht further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: while presenting a representation for each content item in the second set of one or more content items, detecting selection of a first representation of a content item; and after detecting the selection of the first representation of the content item, providing, to the server device, data corresponding to the selection of the first representation of the content item (see user profile and track at [33, 37, 45]; note suggestions and suggested channel at [44, 45]; note in [37] that user profile info is at client device).
Fastlicht does not explicitly disclose anonymized data corresponding to the selection of the first representation of the content item. However, Fastlicht discloses maintaining user content information privately [41]. And, Wyatt discloses presenting filtered content to a user (Fig. 1) and further discloses anonymized data corresponding to the selection of the first representation of the content item (6:10-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Wyatt’s anonymizing to Fastlicht’s privating. One would have been motivated to do this in order to protect privacy.
Claim 20. The prior art further renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the pattern of use is detected by monitoring user content consumption behavior (see Wyatt and historical user data at 7:15-25, “That demographic information is historical data, developed based on prior requests…” and the motivation to combine is the same as provided in the independent claim above).
And, Wyatt further discloses monitoring user content consumption behavior from that particular client device/appliance:
“The present invention provides an efficient system and method for identifying, caching, and delivering at high speed, the content that users in, for example, a multiple-dwelling unit are likely to want to download based on prior usage characteristics”, 1:45-51;
“…the request and associated informatics are recorded at step 315 for local channel information, and the content request and inferred informatics are sent, …For example, the informatics can comprise a combination of all or a part of the request data transmission, together with any information that has been accumulated on the local appliance regarding customer demographics for that appliance”, 5:20-35;
“…Likewise, as shown at step 515, demographic information associated with the network appliance 105 which has generated the current request is reviewed. That demographic information is historical data, developed based on prior requests that have been filtered by, for example, the process of FIG. 5, and then associated as metadata back to the remote network appliance that generated the current request.”, 7:15-25.
Hence, Wyatt clearly discloses monitoring user content consumption behavior of particular client/appliance devices and content requests (and the motivation to combine is the same as provided in the independent claim above).
Claims 3, 10, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fastlicht (20140304247) in view of Wyatt (12348596) in view of Nomura (20190075426).
Claim 3, 10, 16. Fastlicht does not explicitly disclose the prior art further renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the second set of one or more content items correspond to a first application, and wherein the pattern of use of the client device corresponds to a second application different from the first application. However, see Applicant Spec at [33] for description of this feature. And, Fastlicht discloses application at client device at [17] or app on mobile device at [21]; and also different applications [17, 39, 21], and applications and focused content [17]. And, for pattern of use, see the obviousness statement above and the motivation is the same here. And, Nomura further discloses sharing pattern of use/history among a plurality of applications for better targeting [188] and further see targeting at [158]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Nomura’s sharing info across different apps for better targeting to Fastlicht’s profile and focused content. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better provide info for better focused content.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Examiner notes related parent CON application 16708846 and it’s affirming PTAB decision on 11/14/24;
b) Kruger discloses using metadata and anonymizing;
c) Cooke, Chitturi [65] disclose content filtering by client.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTHUR DURAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 7-5pm.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/ARTHUR DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 6/2/2026
Prosecution Insights