Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/04/2025 (third party), 01/22/2026, 02/03/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of personalized presentation of content based on user profile without significantly more. The claim 13 recites a system comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
identify a content item listing provided by a first service provider to be presented via an interface of a client device associated with a user;
communication circuitry configured to:
transmit, to an external database, a query for image data associated with the content item listing; and
receive the image data from the external database, wherein the image data is based at least in part on profile data associated with the user; and
wherein the processing circuity is further configured to: cause the client device to present the content item listing, wherein the content item listing comprises an image generated based at least in part on received image data.
Apart from the processing and communication circuitry, the claim recites:
Identifying content listing
Querying an external database for image data
Receiving image data according to user profile data
Displaying the listing with an image from the image data
The core idea here is providing personalized image data based on user profile information. Courts have routinely characterized these concepts as:
Targeted advertising
Personalization based on user data
Organizing and presenting information
These fall within the abstract idea grouping of:
Certain methods of organizing human activity
Mental processes (evaluating and tailoring information)
Similar cases include Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital Onne Bank, Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.
Claim 13 and claim 2 are therefore abstract idea of personalized presentation of content based on user profile data.
The additional elements recited are generic computer components
“client device”
“external database”
“interface”
“processor and communications circuitry”
These components do not improve the computer functionality, image processing technology, database architecture, network protocols or rendering techniques. The claim simply uses conventional computing tools to perform the personalization, there is therefore no technological improvement. So, the claims with all the limitations do not result into more than just the abstract idea of personalized presentation of content based on user profile data.
The limitations in the dependent claims provide detailed particularity to the independent claims but the independent claims alone or in combination also fail to provide any improvement to the technology as they also do not improve the computer functionality, image processing technology, database architecture, network protocols or rendering techniques.
Claims 2-21 are therefore non-statutory under 35. U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 2-3, 6-14, 17-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Potrebic, USPG_Pub. 20060026647.
Regarding claims 2, 13, Potrebic discloses a system comprising:
processing circuitry (fig. 1, entire; fig. 8 is method performed by fig. 1; Para. 93) configured to:
identify a content item listing provided by a first service provider to be presented via an interface of a client device associated with a user (Para. 45, 48, 49, 103 (portal application 130 identifies all movies and categorizes them into different categories to present to a user via interface upon receiving the electronic program guide data downloaded from content providers 106-Para. 38-so the listing of categorized movies provided to user on the interface are identified from EPG data received from one or more content providers 106 and the identification is performed by the portal application 130 in the client device 102));
communication circuitry configured to:
transmit, to an external database, a query for image data associated with the content item listing (Para. 103 (query is transmitted to remote location/database over internet connection-see also Para. 49 which states that “one of the content providers can be a Web-based content provider. In this case, when a user selects a particular UI button, an associated query is made of the content provider for any metadata, including visually-discernable images, associated with the user's selection. When the metadata is received, it is processed and, where appropriate, suitably displayed for the user”)); and
receive the image data from the external database, wherein the image data is based at least in part on profile data associated with the user (Para. 49, 103 (image is received from database)); and
wherein the processing circuity is further configured to:
cause the client device to present the content item listing, wherein the content item listing comprises an image generated based at least in part on received image data (Para. 49, 52, 103 (the remote source returns the metadata or image(s) of interest, as well as any appropriate information, to the client device for display)).
Regarding claims 3, 14, Potrebic discloses the system, wherein a profile of the user, associated with the profile data, is maintained by the first service provider, and the image data is customized for the user based at least in part on the profile data (Para. 103, 104 (appropriate images are determined based on user preference/profile)).
Regarding claims 7, 18, Potrebic discloses the system, wherein a video-based content item corresponding to the content item listing is provided to the first service provider from a second service provider, and the external database is provided by the second service provider that is external to and distinct from the first service provider (Para. 49, 103 (the web provider is external and distinct from content provider)).
Regarding claims 8, 19, Potrebic discloses the system, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to identify the content item listing based at least in part on receiving a query from the client device (Para. 49), wherein the query is related to a video-based content item corresponding to the content item listing (Para. 49, 103).
Regarding claims 9, 20, Potrebic discloses the system, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: formulate the query based at least in part on information regarding a type of database query required by the external database (Para. 86-90 (search can be by some format for example name of actor or title of content-there is a search protocol for every database for example SQL)).
Regarding claims 10, 21, Potrebic discloses the system, wherein the image comprises a depiction of an actor in a video-based content item corresponding to the content item listing (Para. 88).
Regarding claim 11, Potrebic discloses the method, wherein the image comprises a frame of a video-based content item corresponding to the content item listing (Para. 51-52 (image meets frame of video-based content/movie)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-5, 15-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Potrebic, USPG_Pub. 20060026647, in view of Schein, US pat. 6,151,059.
Regarding claims 4, 15, Potrebic does not explicitly disclose the system, wherein the image data comprises a logo associated with the content item listing.
Schein discloses Logos linked with advertisement provided directly within program listings wherein the logos include Identifiers for linking advertisements to shows or movies listed in the electronic program guide (col. 6, ll. 47-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Potrebic to include image data comprises a logo associated with the content item listing so that user can directly access advertisements by clicking on cover art associated with content listings so that the user can access advertisement directly from the interface.
Regarding claims 5, 16, Potrebic in view of Schien discloses the system, wherein the external database is provided by a second service provider that is external to and distinct from the first service provider, and the logo is a logo of the second service provider (Schien: col. 6, ll. 47-49 (advertisers are different from content providers)).
Regarding claims 6, 17, Potrebic discloses the system, wherein the image data comprises a title of a video-based content item corresponding to the content item listing (Para. 49 103 (image corresponds to title listing)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY BANTAMOI whose telephone number is (571)270-3581. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/ANTHONY BANTAMOI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2422