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.
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 8/27/26, Applicant amended the claims. Applicant’s Remarks address these amendments. See the addition of Kruger to the 103 rejection below that addresses these new features.
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 locally collecting information describing content consumption behavior of a user of the client device; after locally collecting the information describing the content consumption behavior of the user of the client device: locally inferring, based on the information describing the content consumption behavior of the user of the client device, an inferred preference of the user, after locally inferring the inferred preference of the user, locally storing the inferred preference of the user; and locally filtering; 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. 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 and input, 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, 5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fastlicht (20140304247) in view of Kruger (20130086603).
Claim 1, 8, 14. Fastlicht discloses a method for performing local content personalization, the method comprising:
at a client device that includes a display and an input device (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.”; also for input device see Figs. 1b, 1c and input):
locally collecting information describing content interest of a user of the client device (“[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…The filter types and channelization options can include filters based on content type (e.g., video, text, audio and similar content filter types), filters based on content subject matter (e.g., adult content filters, key word inclusion or exclusion and similar subject matter filters), filters based on sources (e.g., inclusion or exclusion of domains and similar source based filters)” and “[37] Storing the user profile in the user profile database…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.”; also see track user and focused content [44]; track user and consumption [45]);
after locally collecting the information describing the content interest of the user of the client device (see [21, 37, 44, 45] preceding);
locally determining, based on the information describing the content interest of the user of the client device, an preference of the user (see [21, 37, 44, 45] preceding);
after locally determining preference of the user, locally storing the preference of the user (“[37] Storing the user profile in the user profile database…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.”).
Fastlicht does not explicitly disclose local content consumption behavior or locally inferring or an inferred preference of the user. However, as shown above, Fastlicht discloses the user profile database can be stored at the client device. And, Kruger further discloses tracking user consumption history [4, 5] and inferring user interests based on history [4] and discloses local client interest and profile information (“[39]… At step 508, local or client side profile information 132 is accessed. In accordance with at least some embodiments, the client side profile information 132 can include user 104 preferences regarding enhanced content 142, such as advertisements or other information, that is presented to the user 104 while the user 104 is accessing other content 140.”), and and local profile information (“[31]… As shown, the client application 124 can include or be associated with profile information 130 and a user interface module or function 238.”; “[39]… At step 508, local or client side profile information 132 is accessed. In accordance with at least some embodiments, the client side profile information 132 can include user 104 preferences regarding enhanced content 142, such as advertisements or other information, that is presented to the user 104 while the user 104 is accessing other content 140.”) and locally inferring and an inferred preference of the user (the user profile is stored locally and includes inferred preferences as seen at [47] with “inferred preferences”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Kruger’s tracking user consumption and inferring based on consumption and local inferences and local profile to Fastlicht’s tracking and targeting/filtering. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better provided focused content while protecting privacy (as seen in Kruger with privacy at [5]).
Fastlicht further discloses detecting, via the input device, a first request for content (Fig 1b, 1c; [4]; Fig. 2 at item 201; Fig. 3);
in response to detecting the first request for content, sending, to a server device different from the client device, a second request for content (Figs. 2, 3);
after sending the second request for content, receiving, from the server device, a first set of content items as a response to the second request for content (Fig. 2; [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 first request for content:
locally filtering, based on the inferred preference of the user, the first set of content items to a respective set of one or more content items (“[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…The filter types and channelization options can include filters based on content type (e.g., video, text, audio and similar content filter types), filters based on content subject matter (e.g., adult content filters, key word inclusion or exclusion and similar subject matter filters), filters based on sources (e.g., inclusion or exclusion of domains and similar source based filters) and similar filters and channelization options”; also see combination of prior art for inferred preference feature);
in accordance with a determination that the respective set of one or more content items is a second set of one or more content items, presenting, via the display, a representation for each content item in the 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.”; also see Figs. 2, 3 with multiple sets of content items).
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.
The prior art further renders obvious in accordance with a determination that the respective set of one or more content items is a third set of one or more content items , presenting, via the display, a representation for each content item in the 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, and wherein the first set of content items includes the third set of one or more content items (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 see Figs. 2, 3 with multiple sets of content items and content aggregation).
Claim 2, 9, 15. Fastlicht further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the information is locally collected before the first request is detected (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 second request for content, receiving, from the server device, data corresponding to the first set of content items as a response to the second request for content, wherein the data is associated with the first set of content items, and wherein the respective set of one or more content items is locally filtered based ([21]; see Figs. 2, 3; also see [21, 22, 30]). Fastlicht does not explicitly disclose using metadata associated with and separate from the content for the content filtering. However, Kruger discloses using metadata associated with and separate from the content for the content filtering (see metadata and select content at [8, 35]; also see metadata at [9, 34]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Kruger’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 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, Kruger discloses further discloses anonymized data corresponding to the selection of the first representation of the content item (see protect and sensitive and anonymous at [9]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Kruger’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 information describing content consumption behavior is collected by monitoring user content consumption behavior (Fastlicht and track citations above, see Kruger and citations for consumption behavior features above, and the motivation to combine is the same as provided in the independent claim above).
Claims 3, 6, 10, 12, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fastlicht (20140304247) in view of Kruger (20130086603) 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 content consumption behavior 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.
Claim 6, 12, 18. Fastlicht does not explicitly disclose the the method of claim 1, wherein the first request for content was detected via a first application, and wherein the content consumption behavior corresponds to a second application different from the first application. However, Fastlicht discloses an application at client device at [17] or app on mobile device at [21] and Fastlicht also discloses an application as the website, network source, where the content comes from [3, 4, 19]. 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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 9/8/2026
Prosecution Insights