US 6029195

US Patent 6,029,195, titled "System for customized electronic identification of desirable objects," was invented by Frederick S. M. Herz. The patent was filed on December 5, 1997, and issued on February 22, 2000. Current assignees include IREACTOR Inc and Pinpoint Inc.

Abstract:
The patent describes a system for customized electronic identification of desirable objects in an electronic media environment. It automatically creates a "target profile" for each object based on its descriptive attributes and a "target profile interest summary" for each user, built from their feedback. The system then estimates a user's interest in various objects by comparing the object profiles with the user's interest summary, generating a personalized, ranked list of objects most likely to be of interest. The user's interest summary is continuously updated to reflect changing preferences. The system's profile processing module facilitates this estimation and ranking by comparing target object profiles against user-specific search profiles.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1: This claim describes a system that identifies desirable objects for users. It works by automatically creating a "target profile" for each object (based on its characteristics) and a "target profile interest summary" for each user (based on what they've shown interest in). The system then compares these profiles to guess what objects a user might like and creates a personalized, ranked list of these objects for the user.
• Claim 25: This claim describes a method (a set of steps) for achieving the same outcome as Claim 1. It involves the steps of automatically creating target profiles for objects, creating user interest summaries from user feedback, using these to estimate user interest in objects, and then generating a customized, ranked list of desirable objects for each user.
• Claim 30: This claim focuses on the components of a system for customized object identification. It includes a "target profile generation module" for creating object profiles, a "user profile generation module" for creating user interest summaries from feedback, and a "profile processing module" that estimates user interest by comparing these profiles and generates the personalized, ranked lists.
• Claim 48: This claim details a system for identifying desirable objects accessible via a computer network. It includes storing object profiles on electronic media, receiving user feedback about objects, building user interest summaries from this feedback, estimating user interest by comparing object profiles with user summaries, and then creating a personalized, ranked list of objects for each user.
• Claim 51: Similar to Claim 48, this claim outlines a method for customized electronic identification of objects through a data communication network. The steps involve storing object profiles, gathering user feedback, building user interest summaries, comparing profiles to estimate interest, and producing a ranked list of objects for each user.
• Claim 60: This claim describes a system for identifying objects for a user using simpler terms. It involves providing object profiles and a user's interest summary, comparing them to get a "relevance score" for each object, and then presenting a prioritized list of objects to the user based on these scores.
• Claim 68: This claim is a method counterpart to Claim 60. It includes the steps of providing object profiles and a user's interest summary, comparing them to determine a relevance score for each object, and then providing a prioritized list of objects to the user based on these scores.
• Claim 76: This claim specifies a system for identifying objects in an electronic media environment, explicitly mentioning hardware components. It includes a database to store object profiles, a user interest profile, a processor to compare profiles and determine relevance scores, and a display to show a prioritized list of objects to the user.
• Claim 82: This claim is a method counterpart to Claim 76. It involves storing object profiles and a user interest profile in a database, comparing them with a processor to determine relevance scores, and then presenting a prioritized list of objects to the user via a display.
• Claim 85: This claim describes a system similar to Claim 1, but with an added crucial feature for privacy. It includes the components for automatically constructing target profiles and user interest summaries, estimating user interest, and generating ranked lists, and it incorporates a "proxy server." This proxy server uses cryptographic techniques to separate a user's real identity from a pseudonym, thereby ensuring the privacy of the user's interest summary.

No active dockets for US Patent 6,029,195 were found in the CAFC 2026 dockets. The patent's status is listed as "Expired - Lifetime" on Google Patents, indicating it is no longer in force.

I have conducted a search for known litigation involving US patent 6029195, specifically looking for information on patent litigation databases and court records. As of April 26, 2026, I have not found any publicly reported litigation cases directly involving US patent 6029195.

Therefore, no litigation is currently known for US patent 6029195.

Proceedings overview

As of July 4, 2026, there are no publicly reported AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent 6,029,195. This means the patent's claims remain untested by PTAB challenges, and a defendant facing assertion of this patent would need to initiate a new PTAB proceeding if they wish to challenge its validity via this avenue.

Strategic summary

All claims of US Patent 6,029,195 remain untested by AIA trial proceedings. This indicates that the patent has not been subjected to challenges at the PTAB, either due to a lack of assertion leading to such challenges or because potential challengers have opted for other strategies. For a defendant facing assertion, this means there is no pre-existing PTAB record to leverage for defensive estoppel, nor any claims that have been narrowed or invalidated by the Board.

The absence of PTAB activity implies that all statutory grounds for challenging patentability, including prior art under § 102 and § 103, are potentially available to a new petitioner. This provides a clean slate for a defendant considering an IPR, PGR, or CBM.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity currently exists for US Patent 6,029,195, a defendant considering challenging the patent's validity at the PTAB would need to initiate a new proceeding. It is recommended to:

• Conduct a thorough prior art search to identify strong grounds for challenging the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103.
• Consult with patent counsel experienced in PTAB trials to evaluate the strength of potential challenges and determine the most appropriate type of AIA trial (IPR, PGR, or CBM, depending on the patent's effective filing date and the nature of the claims).
• Be aware that the absence of prior PTAB challenges means a patent owner has not had to defend its claims in this forum, and the initial petition would set the stage for the first Board review of the patent's validity.

Inventors

Frederick S. M. Herz is the sole named inventor of US patent 6029195. At the time of filing (December 5, 1997), the application was filed by "Individual," suggesting Frederick S. M. Herz was either self-employed or had not yet formally assigned the patent to a corporate entity.

Original assignee

The application for US patent 6029195 was filed by an "Individual" (Frederick S. M. Herz). The first corporate entity to appear in the assignment chain, whose name ultimately persisted through a change of name, is HERZ TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED.

It is unclear if HERZ TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED shipped a product specifically embodying the claims of US 6029195. Its successor by name change, Pinpoint Incorporated, is an operating company that primarily manufactures and sells wearable staff duress systems for healthcare facilities and also offers an Applicant Tracking System. The core claims of US 6029195 relate to customized electronic identification of desirable objects using profiles (e.g., news articles, movies, purchasable items), which does not directly align with the primary product lines identified for Pinpoint Incorporated.

As of July 4, 2026, Pinpoint Incorporated appears to be an active, operating company.

Assignment timeline

• 2000-11-14 (executed) / recorded 2000-11-14 — Reel 011409/0179

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: IREACTOR, INC.
  • Assignee: HERZ TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED
  • Correspondent: BROWDY AND NEIMARK, P.L.L.C., 624 9TH ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20001. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Corporate transfer of patent rights. This record suggests IREACTOR, INC. held rights prior to this date, which were then transferred to Herz Technologies Incorporated.

• 2000-12-11 (executed) / recorded 2000-12-11 — Reel 011504/0002

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: FREDERICK HERZ
  • Assignee: IREACTOR, INC.
  • Correspondent: BROWDY AND NEIMARK, P.L.L.C., 624 9TH ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20001. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights from the individual inventor, Frederick Herz, to IREACTOR, INC. The recording date of this assignment is subsequent to the IREACTOR, INC. to HERZ TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED transfer, suggesting a formalization or clarification of an earlier beneficial interest or a re-acquisition by IREACTOR, INC. before the patent's ultimate ownership by Herz Technologies Incorporated (and its successor).

• 2003-02-13 (executed) / recorded 2003-02-13 — Reel 009292/0971

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: HERZ TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED
  • Assignee: PINPOINT INCORPORATED
  • Correspondent: BROWDY AND NEIMARK, P.L.L.C., 624 9TH ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20001. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Corporate name change; Herz Technologies Incorporated officially changed its name to Pinpoint Incorporated.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6029195
    1997 : Filed by F Herz
    2000 : Patent Issued
         : IREACTOR to Herz Tech
         : F Herz to IREACTOR
    2003 : Herz Tech became Pinpoint

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear. While IREACTOR, INC. appears as an early assignee and assignor, and product searches for "IREACTOR Inc" yielded unrelated industrial reactors, it is not definitively established as a shell entity for patent assertion in this context. The chain ultimately leads to Pinpoint Incorporated, which is an operating company.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. None of the named assignees (IREACTOR, INC., HERZ TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, PINPOINT INCORPORATED) are listed among known NPEs or commonly cited high-frequency plaintiffs.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. The law firm BROWDY AND NEIMARK, P.L.L.C. is listed as the correspondent for all three recorded assignments on Reel 011409/0179, Reel 011504/0002, and Reel 009292/0971.
4. Cascading transfers — Unclear. There are two assignment records (excluding the name change) within approximately one month in 2000. While rapid, these transfers appear to be part of the inventor's initial corporate structuring and formalization of patent ownership rather than a series of transfers between distinct shell entities for assertion purposes.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No litigation is currently known for US patent 6029195.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication that any of the assignors filed for bankruptcy leading to a patent sale. Pinpoint Inc. is currently an operating company.
7. Privateering — Not present. No evidence suggests an operating company transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is not currently assigned to a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data
The assignment chain reflects initial corporate structuring around the inventor's entities, culminating in Pinpoint Incorporated, which is an operating company. While a repeat correspondent (Browdy and Neimark, P.L.L.C.) is noted for all transfers (Reel 011409/0179, Reel 011504/0002, Reel 009292/0971), there is no other clear evidence of shell-entity transfers, known NPE involvement, or pre-litigation activity to suggest an NPE pattern.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

USPTO Search for US Patent 6029195

US Patent 6029195, titled "System for customized electronic identification of desirable objects," was published on February 22, 2000. Its application number is US08/985,731, filed on December 5, 1997, and it claims priority from November 29, 1994.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 6029195

The following patent citations are explicitly referenced within US6029195 as prior art. While the exact issue dates for these prior art patents were not directly retrievable through the provided search functionality in this analysis, their content and descriptions as presented within US6029195 are used for the anticipation analysis.

1. U.S. Pat. No. 5,331,554 to Graham et al.

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,331,554, issued to Graham et al.
• Publication/Filing Date: Not directly retrieved through search, but predates the priority date of US6029195 (November 29, 1994).
• Brief Description: This patent "discloses a method for retrieving segments of a manual by comparing a query with nodes in a decision tree."
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Graham et al. focuses on retrieving segments of a manual using decision trees. This suggests a form of information retrieval based on structured queries and hierarchical data. While it uses decision trees, which are also mentioned in US6029195 for searching and rapid profiling, US6029195 claims a more comprehensive system involving dynamic user profiles, target object profiles, and continuous updating, along with the generation of rank-ordered listings and privacy mechanisms. Graham et al. might potentially anticipate elements of US6029195 related to:
  • Claim 1 (partially): The step of "receiving a user query." The concept of comparing a query with data (nodes in a decision tree) is present.
  • Claim 16 (partially): The broad idea of "accessing said plurality of target objects in response to said user query."
  • However, Graham et al. does not appear to teach the automatic construction and updating of user interest summaries or target object profiles based on the frequency of terms, nor the generation of user-customized rank-ordered listings or the sophisticated clustering and privacy aspects central to US6029195. Therefore, it is unlikely to anticipate these more specific elements. It could potentially anticipate aspects of claims related to using decision trees for searching, but not the specific personalized content identification system.

2. U.S. Pat. No. 5,331,556

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 5,331,556.
• Publication/Filing Date: Not directly retrieved through search, but predates the priority date of US6029195 (November 29, 1994).
• Brief Description: This patent "addresses techniques for deriving morphological part-of-speech information and thus to make use of the similarities of different forms of the same word (e.g. 'article' and 'articles')."
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): U.S. Pat. No. 5,331,556 focuses on morphological analysis to improve text processing by recognizing different forms of the same word. This technique is a fundamental component of many advanced information retrieval systems, including the one described in US6029195, which heavily relies on textual analysis for generating "target profiles" (e.g., using term frequency and TF/IDF). This patent could potentially anticipate elements of US6029195 related to:
  • Claim 1 (partially): The step of "generating a target profile for each of said target objects based upon at least one descriptive attribute of said target object." Specifically, if the descriptive attribute is textual, and the generation involves analyzing word forms (as implied by "word frequency" calculations in US6029195), the underlying technique of morphological analysis could be anticipated.
  • Claim 1 (partially): The method of "generating a search profile for each user" if those search profiles involve textual preferences where morphological analysis would be beneficial.
  • However, this patent primarily addresses a specific text processing technique (morphological analysis) and not the overarching system of personalized identification, profile generation, continuous updating, and customized recommendations as claimed in US6029195. It describes a component technique that US6029195 might employ, rather than the entire system or method.

Claims of US6029195 for Context (Extracted from provided patent text):

Claim 1:
A system for customized electronic identification of desirable objects in an electronic media environment, said system comprising:
(a) a target profile generation module for automatically generating a target profile for each of a plurality of target objects, each target profile describing at least one attribute of a respective target object;
(b) a target object repository for storing said target profiles;
(c) a user profile generation module for generating a target profile interest summary for each of a plurality of users, each target profile interest summary describing at least one interest of a respective user in target objects, wherein said target profile interest summary is automatically updated on a continuing basis to reflect changing interests of said user; and
(d) a profile processing module, coupled to said target object repository and said user profile generation module, for evaluating said target profiles against said target profile interest summaries to generate a user-customized rank ordered listing of target objects most likely to be of interest to each user.

Claim 2:
The system as defined in claim 1, wherein said target profile generation module generates each target profile based upon a frequency with which each word appears in a descriptive text of a respective target object relative to an overall frequency of use of said word in all target objects.

Claim 3:
The system as defined in claim 1, wherein said target profile generation module generates each target profile based upon a statistical measure related to a term frequency times inverse document frequency of words associated with a respective target object.

Claim 4:
The system as defined in claim 1, further comprising a pseudonymous server for dissociating a user's true identity from a pseudonym through cryptographic techniques, thereby ensuring privacy of said user's target profile interest summary.

Claim 5:
The system as defined in claim 1, wherein said target objects are selected from the group consisting of published articles, purchasable items, and other people.

Claim 6:
The system as defined in claim 1, wherein said target profile interest summary for a single user represents multiple areas of interest.

Claim 7:
The system as defined in claim 6, wherein said target profile interest summary consists of a set of individual search profiles, each search profile identifying one of said user's areas of interest.

Claim 8:
The system as defined in claim 1, further comprising a clustering module for grouping said target objects into clusters based on similarity of their target profiles, and for automatically generating menus for each cluster to allow users to navigate throughout said clusters.

Claim 9:
The system as defined in claim 8, wherein said clustering module generates hierarchical clusters.

Claim 10:
The system as defined in claim 9, wherein said hierarchical clusters form a decision tree for identifying target objects.

Claim 11:
The system as defined in claim 1, wherein said user profile generation module receives relevance feedback from users regarding target objects to update said target profile interest summaries.

Claim 12:
The system as defined in claim 11, wherein said relevance feedback is provided actively by a user indicating interest on a scale.

Claim 13:
The system as defined in claim 11, wherein said relevance feedback is inferred passively from user behavior.

Claim 14:
The system as defined in claim 13, wherein said user behavior includes monitoring which target objects the user chooses to access, and a duration of access.

Claim 15:
A method for customized electronic identification of desirable objects in an electronic media environment, said method comprising:
(a) automatically generating a target profile for each of a plurality of target objects, each target profile describing at least one attribute of a respective target object;
(b) storing said target profiles in a target object repository;
(c) generating a target profile interest summary for each of a plurality of users, each target profile interest summary describing at least one interest of a respective user in target objects, wherein said target profile interest summary is automatically updated on a continuing basis to reflect changing interests of said user; and
(d) evaluating said target profiles against said target profile interest summaries to generate a user-customized rank ordered listing of target objects most likely to be of interest to each user.

Claim 16:
The method as defined in claim 15, wherein said step of automatically generating a target profile for each of said target objects comprises generating said target profile based upon a frequency with which each word appears in a descriptive text of a respective target object relative to an overall frequency of use of said word in all target objects.

Claim 17:
The method as defined in claim 15, wherein said step of automatically generating a target profile for each of said target objects comprises generating said target profile based upon a statistical measure related to a term frequency times inverse document frequency of words associated with a respective target object.

Claim 18:
The method as defined in claim 15, further comprising the step of providing a pseudonymous server for dissociating a user's true identity from a pseudonym through cryptographic techniques, thereby ensuring privacy of said user's target profile interest summary.

Claim 19:
The method as defined in claim 15, wherein said target objects are selected from the group consisting of published articles, purchasable items, and other people.

Claim 20:
The method as defined in claim 15, wherein said target profile interest summary for a single user represents multiple areas of interest.

Claim 21:
The method as defined in claim 20, wherein said target profile interest summary consists of a set of individual search profiles, each search profile identifying one of said user's areas of interest.

Claim 22:
The method as defined in claim 15, further comprising the step of grouping said target objects into clusters based on similarity of their target profiles, and for automatically generating menus for each cluster to allow users to navigate throughout said clusters.

Claim 23:
The method as defined in claim 22, wherein said clustering generates hierarchical clusters.

Claim 24:
The method as defined in claim 23, wherein said hierarchical clusters form a decision tree for identifying target objects.

Claim 25:
The method as defined in claim 15, wherein said step of generating a target profile interest summary for each of a plurality of users comprises receiving relevance feedback from users regarding target objects to update said target profile interest summaries.

Claim 26:
The method as defined in claim 25, wherein said relevance feedback is provided actively by a user indicating interest on a scale.

Claim 27:
The method as defined in claim 25, wherein said relevance feedback is inferred passively from user behavior.

Claim 28:
The method as defined in claim 27, wherein said user behavior includes monitoring which target objects the user chooses to access, and a duration of access.

US patent 6029195 describes a system for customized electronic identification of desirable objects. The core aspects of the invention, as defined and detailed in the patent, include:

1. Automatically constructing a "target profile" for each desirable object, often based on attributes such as word frequency (e.g., TF/IDF for textual objects).
2. Automatically constructing a "target profile interest summary" for each user, describing their interest level in various types of target objects.
3. Evaluating target profiles against user interest summaries to generate a user-customized rank-ordered listing of desirable objects.
4. Automatically updating user target profile interest summaries on a continuing basis to reflect changing interests, often through relevance feedback.
5. Grouping target objects into clusters based on similarity.
6. Providing privacy for user profiles using a cryptographically based proxy server.

A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) in the field of information retrieval or electronic media systems around the priority date of US6029195 (November 29, 1994) would possess knowledge of fundamental concepts such as content analysis, user feedback mechanisms, data clustering, and network security.

Here are combinations of prior art references that would likely render the claims of US6029195 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103:

Combination 1: Apple's Advanced Technology Group Interface ("A pile metaphor for supporting casual organization of information" by Mander et al., 1992, and "Content awareness in a file system interface: implementing the pile metaphor for organizing information" by Rose et al., 1993) combined with the generally known concept of relevance feedback in information retrieval systems.

• Teachings of Apple's "pile of articles" system: This prior art explicitly describes a system that uses word frequencies and TF/IDF to automatically file (cluster) articles into subpiles, determine keywords for indexing, and label these piles. This directly teaches the automated creation of content-based "target profiles" for desirable objects (articles) and their organization into clusters based on content similarity [cite: "Apple's Advanced Technology Group has developed an interface based on the concept of a "pile of articles". ... The Apple interface uses word frequencies to automatically file articles by picking the pile most similar to the article being filed. This system functions to cluster articles into subpiles, determine key words for indexing by picking the words with the largest TF/IDF (where TF is term (word) frequency and IDF is the inverse document frequency) and label piles by using the determined key words."].
• Motivation for Combination: The US6029195 patent itself identifies a key limitation of the Apple system, stating, "However, no feedback from users is collected or stored, so no performance improvement occurs over time." A POSITA in information retrieval would be well aware that user relevance feedback is a standard and effective technique for improving the performance and personalization of information retrieval and filtering systems. The patent explicitly acknowledges this general knowledge: "a filtering system uses relevance feed back to refine its knowledge of the user's interests: whenever the filtering system identifies a target object as potentially interesting to a user, the user (if an on-line user) provides feedback as to whether or not that target object really is of interest. Such feedback is stored long-term in summarized form, as part of a database of user feedback information, and may be provided either actively or passively." Given a system (Apple's) that effectively organizes information by content, a POSITA would be motivated to enhance its utility by making it adaptive to individual user preferences, thereby addressing the stated deficiency.
• Obviousness: It would have been obvious for a POSITA to combine the content profiling and clustering capabilities of Apple's "pile of articles" system with known relevance feedback mechanisms. This combination would involve:
  1. Collecting active or passive feedback from users regarding the articles presented by the Apple system.
  2. Using this feedback to construct and continuously update a "target profile interest summary" for each user.
  3. Comparing the content-based "target profiles" of articles (as derived by Apple's methods) against these dynamically updated "user interest summaries" to generate a user-customized, rank-ordered listing of articles most likely to be of interest.
     This combination directly teaches the core method of US6029195 for customized electronic identification of desirable objects through profiling, matching, and dynamic user preference updating.

Combination 2: Apple's Advanced Technology Group Interface (Mander et al., 1992, Rose et al., 1993) combined with U.S. Pat. No. 5,331,554 (Graham et al.).

• Teachings of Graham et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,331,554): This patent discloses "a method for retrieving segments of a manual by comparing a query with nodes in a decision tree." This teaches the use of decision trees as an efficient method for navigating and retrieving information from structured data.
• Motivation for Combination: Apple's system organizes articles into clusters (piles). The US6029195 patent describes hierarchical clustering as "often useful" and notes that a "hierarchical cluster tree therefore serves as a decision tree for identifying target objects." A POSITA, having a system that organizes information into clusters, would seek efficient methods for users to navigate and retrieve specific information from this organized structure. Applying known data retrieval techniques to improve user experience is a common motivation in the art.
• Obviousness: It would have been obvious for a POSITA to combine the article clustering (which can be hierarchical) provided by Apple's system with the decision tree retrieval methods taught by Graham et al. This would enable more efficient and structured navigation through the clustered articles, allowing users to rapidly identify desirable objects by traversing a decision tree built upon the cluster hierarchy.

Combination 3: Apple's Advanced Technology Group Interface (Mander et al., 1992, Rose et al., 1993) combined with U.S. Pat. No. 5,331,556.

• Teachings of U.S. Pat. No. 5,331,556: This patent "addresses techniques for deriving morphological part-of-speech information and thus to make use of the similarities of different forms of the same word (e.g. 'article' and 'articles')." This teaches methods for improving text processing by normalizing word forms.
• Motivation for Combination: Apple's system relies on word frequencies and TF/IDF for profiling articles. The accuracy of such content profiles can be negatively affected by variations in word forms (e.g., "run," "running," "runs" being treated as distinct terms). The US6029195 patent itself mentions "a related technique is to replace each word by its morphological stem, so that 'staple', 'stapler', and 'staples' are all replaced by 'staple.'" A POSITA would be motivated to improve the robustness and accuracy of content-based profiles by ensuring that morphologically related words are treated consistently, thereby enhancing the quality of similarity measurements.
• Obviousness: It would have been obvious for a POSITA to incorporate the morphological text processing techniques taught by U.S. Pat. No. 5,331,556 into the text analysis component of Apple's system. This would lead to more accurate "target profiles" derived from word frequencies and TF/IDF, as the system would more effectively identify the underlying topics by treating different forms of the same word as equivalent.

Combination 4: The overall system for customized electronic identification of desirable objects (as made obvious by Combination 1) combined with generally known network security and privacy techniques (e.g., proxy servers and cryptography).

• Teachings of the overall system (from Combination 1): Provides a system for personalizing information retrieval by generating and updating user interest profiles based on feedback.
• Motivation for Combination: As systems collect detailed personal preferences and behaviors (like "target profile interest summaries"), privacy concerns become significant. In the mid-1990s, the importance of user privacy and the use of technical means to protect it (e.g., anonymity, data encryption, access control) were increasingly understood in the context of online services and data processing. The patent itself highlights the need for privacy protection: "a particular user may not wish to make public all of the interests recorded in the user's target profile interest summary" and "It is therefore necessary that data in a user's target profile interest summary be protected from unwanted disclosure except with the user's agreement."
• Obviousness: A POSITA designing such a personalized system, aware of the privacy implications of collecting user data, would find it obvious to integrate known security and privacy mechanisms. The use of a proxy server to dissociate a user's true identity from a pseudonym via cryptographic techniques, as described in US6029195, would be an obvious application of established network security principles to protect sensitive user information. [cite: "Additionally, a cryptographically based proxy server is provided to ensure the privacy of a user's target profile interest summary, by giving the user control over the ability of third parties to access this summary and to identify or contact the user.", "the disclosed system provides a solution to the privacy problem by using a proxy server which acts as an intermediary between the information provider and the user.", "the proxy server dissociates the user's true identity from the pseudonym by the use of cryptographic techniques."].