DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the RCE, Remarks, and Amendment filed 04/16/2026.
Claims 1, 11, 17 have been amended.
Claims 2, 4, 7-10, 13-14 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 11-12, 15-21 have been examined and are pending.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 11-12, 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 17 have been amended to recite a feature directed towards the following: “…and the user, who is in a group that the current user joins and has the non-friend relationship with the current user, is a non-friend within a preset distance from the current user that is actively selected by a recommendation algorithm: …” for which there is no support in the original disclosure. The limitation is considered impermissible new matter.
Although Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks (filed 4/16/2026, pg. 1) assert that support for the claim language is found as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
148
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Respectfully, the Examiner does not find the necessary support for this feature at these aforementioned passages, nor any other passage of the original disclosure.
Indeed, Specification as originally filed (pg. 10, lines 17-22; corresponding to PGPub 2022/0284479 A1 paragraph [0040]), to which the applicant in part points for alleged support, actually teaches something quite different, as follows:
“…the backend of the social application may, by a corresponding recommendation algorithm, actively select users who are associated and have the non-friend relationship with 20 the current user, such as non-friends within a preset distance from the current user, and posts published by the non-friends and actively pushed by the backend of the social application by using the preset recommendation algorithm are displayed on the first information stream page 210;…”
Herein, at PGPub of Spec [0040], as described in the Applicant’s own Specification, a recommendation algorithm may select users who have a nonfriend relationship with current user to display posts of such users to said current user BUT the display of these posts of such users with nonfriend relationship and preset distance from current user is to the FIRST information stream page – not the SECOND information stream page.
Furthermore, Specification as originally filed (pg. 16, lines 23-29; corresponding to PGPub 2022/0284479 A1 paragraph at [0057]), also to which the applicant in part points for alleged support, actually teaches something quite different, as follows:
“…In this case, the users who have the non-friend relationship with the current user and are pushed by the backend of the social application are not users who are in a group that the current user joins and have the non-friend relationship with the current user and are included in second objects corresponding to a second information stream page. In other words, the users who have the non-friend relationship with the current user and are pushed by the backend of the social application on the first information stream page may be non-friends who do not join any group together with the current user…”
However, herein, at PGPub of Spec [0057], as described in the Applicant’s own Specification, a recommendation algorithm may select users who have a nonfriend relationship with current user to display posts of such users to said current user BUT the users who have a nonfriend relationship do NOT join any group together with the current user – and being in a group of the current user is already a part of the parent claim (i.e. the claims previously recite and require: “…wherein the second objects comprise a user who is in the group that the current user joins… etc…”) Therefore, this type of selection of a user is different than what is now claimed and does not provide support for the current amended feature in question.
Therefore, the applicant’s feature in question, as noted supra, does not find support in the original disclosure. Accordingly, the claims are improperly directed to impermissible new matter.
Dependent claims 3, 5-6, 12, 15-16, 18-21 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 11-12, 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 11, 17 have been amended to recite in part the following: “…and the user, who is in a group that the current user joins and has the non-friend relationship with the current user, is a non-friend within a preset distance from the current user that is actively selected by a recommendation algorithm: …”. However, this feature is not clear. The metes and bounds, i.e. the scope, of the subject matter intended to be encompassed by this feature is not at all clear. It is not clear whether this added description of “the user” is merely exemplary descriptive information of types of users or whether this description is intended to affect the manner in which posts, published by this user who is in a group that the current user joins and has a nonfriend relationship with the current user, are displayed and/or the particular stream page where they are displayed. The Specification does not set forth any mechanism by which knowledge of “select[ion] by a recommendation algorithm” and a “preset distance from the current user” to affect the display of posts in the manner as already required by the claims.
For example, the claims previously set forth a limitation regarding a claimed “information display apparatus… configured to: … display posts published by second objects comprising a user, who is in a group that the current user joins and has a nonfriend relationship with the current user, on a second information stream page corresponding to the group;…”; i.e. the limitation appears to require knowledge of the user in order to effect the display of posts published by the user to a second information stream page and this knowledge is recited as “a nonfriend relationship with the current user” – i.e. posts by nonfriends are displayed on a second information stream page.
This newly added description of the user does not make clear whether the display of posts on this second information stream page is intended to be affected by this added description or whether this is merely providing exemplary context. For example, are posts on the second information stream page limited to ONLY users who are nonfriends AND a preset distance from the current user AND selected by a recommendation algorithm? Or, is this merely one example of types of users whose posts are displayed on the second information stream page? The feature is not clear and the entire original disclosure does not clarify this point.
Although Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks (filed 4/16/2026, pg. 1) assert that support for the claim language is found as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
148
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Respectfully, the Examiner does not find an explanation at these aforementioned passages, nor any other passage of the original disclosure, which clarifies the issue now being raised by the applicant’s amendments.
Indeed, Specification as originally filed (pg. 10, lines 17-22; corresponding to PGPub 2022/0284479 A1 paragraph [0040]), to which the applicant in part points for alleged support, actually teaches something quite different, as follows:
“…the backend of the social application may, by a corresponding recommendation algorithm, actively select users who are associated and have the non-friend relationship with 20 the current user, such as non-friends within a preset distance from the current user, and posts published by the non-friends and actively pushed by the backend of the social application by using the preset recommendation algorithm are displayed on the first information stream page 210;…”
Herein, at PGPub of Spec [0040], as described in the Applicant’s own Specification, a recommendation algorithm may select users who have a nonfriend relationship with current user to display posts of such users to said current user BUT the display of these posts of such users with nonfriend relationship and preset distance from current user is to the FIRST information stream page – not the SECOND information stream page.
Furthermore, Specification as originally filed (pg. 16, lines 23-29; corresponding to PGPub 2022/0284479 A1 paragraph at [0057]), also to which the applicant in part points for alleged support, actually teaches something quite different, as follows:
“…In this case, the users who have the non-friend relationship with the current user and are pushed by the backend of the social application are not users who are in a group that the current user joins and have the non-friend relationship with the current user and are included in second objects corresponding to a second information stream page. In other words, the users who have the non-friend relationship with the current user and are pushed by the backend of the social application on the first information stream page may be non-friends who do not join any group together with the current user…”
Herein, at PGPub of Spec [0057], as described in the Applicant’s own Specification, a recommendation algorithm may select users who have a nonfriend relationship with current user to display posts of such users to said current user BUT the users who have a nonfriend relationship do NOT join any group together with the current user. Therefore, this type of selection of a user is different than what is now claimed and does not provide support for the current amended feature and therefore also does not clarify the intended scope or meaning of the feature in question.
Therefore, the applicant’s feature in question, as noted supra, is not clear and is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the feature in question to merely provide Non-Functional Descriptive material – i.e. an exemplary description of a type of user who is a nonfriend and may be displayed on the second information stream page BUT the feature in question does not limit the display of posts on the second information stream page to ONLY users who are nonfriends AND a preset distance from the current user AND selected by a recommendation algorithm, nor does the feature require a user whose post is displayed on the second information stream page to be within any preset distance of the current user nor be selected by any recommendation algorithm.
Additionally, the claims are rejected as the independent claims (1, 11, 17) recite in part the following: “…similar display style…”; respectfully, “similar display style” is a relative term. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize any particular metes or bounds for what constitutes “similar display style”; for example, does merely being “displayed” with text constitute sufficient “similarity” if the other posts have at least some text or characters? Or, does this term refer to the visual aesthetic of digital design of the posts? or, the software settings for rendering graphics? Or, the color palette for graphics or text? Or, something else? This is so open-ended as to have no metes or bounds by which a person of ordinary skill in the art would fully recognize whether they are infringing the claim. Therefore, the applicant’s feature in question, as noted supra, is not clear and is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Additionally, the claims are rejected as the independent claims (1, 11, 17) each have been amended to recite in part the following: “…wherein in the case that the current user joins a new group and there is a post is published by…”; - underline added for emphasis. Respectfully, this feature is ambiguous. It is not clear what the following phrase means: “…there is a post is published…” The claim draftsman has either left out words or terms necessary to render the phrase comprehensible or has added extra words or terms which render the phrase incomprehensible. A great deal of speculation is required on the part of a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the missing idea or term necessary to make the phrase comprehensible. Because the phrase is not comprehensible, the feature is indefinite and does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
In view of these issues, Examiner finds there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the independent claims (claims 1, 11, and 17).
Dependent claims 3, 5-6, 12, 15-16, 18-21 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Examiner’s Note
Adhering to the guidelines of MPEP 2173.06(II), the Examiner acknowledges that all words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of a claim against the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). The fact that terms may be indefinite does not make the claim obvious over the prior art. However, when the terms of a claim are considered to be indefinite, at least two approaches to the examination of an indefinite claim relative to the prior art are possible.
First, where the degree of uncertainty is not great, and where the claim is subject to more than one interpretation and at least one interpretation would render the claim unpatentable over the prior art, an appropriate course of action would be for the examiner to enter two rejections: (A) a rejection based on indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; and (B) a rejection over the prior art based on the interpretation of the claims which renders the prior art applicable. See, e.g., Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537 (Bd. App. 1984). When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important for the examiner to point out how the claim is being interpreted.
Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
In the present set of claims (filed 04/16/2026), a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 17 exists as noted supra. Therefore, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is not made regarding these new claim amendments, because, as shown in the 35 USC § 112 rejections, speculation and conjecture must be utilized by the Office and the artisan inasmuch as the claims do not adequately reflect what the disclosed invention is under the second paragraph of 35 USC § 112. Again, see In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of claim language.)
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the amendments are interpreted to reflect the invention as previously recited 10/09/2025 and are rejected under 35 USC 103 as noted below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 11-12, 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jafari et al. (US 2016/0012739 A1; hereinafter, "Jafari") in view of McBrearty (US 2012/0084362 A1; hereinafter, "McBrearty").
Claims 1, 11, 17, 21:
Pertaining to claims 1, 11, 17, 21 exemplified by claim 1, Jafari as shown teaches the following:
An information display apparatus for a social application (Jafari, see Figs. 1-2 [An information display apparatus] with processor and see also Fig. 4a), comprising [:] a first information stream page and a second information stream page (Jafari, see again at least Fig. 4A and also [0111]-[0120] and [0131], teaching: The homepage 400 [e.g. a first information stream page] can provide direct access to other pages [e.g. second information stream pages] such as a “Posts”, a “course page”, a “Conexus page”, as well as pages of “other users, Personal Networks, etc…” among others. The information from these other pages is streamed through the user’s homepage 400 [first information stream page] depending on, e.g. as noted per [0215] user defined filters and content sorting such as a “Sort by” box included on the homepage, as well as according to links/menus [portals] as selected by the user. For example, per [0116]-[0118]: “The homepage 400 may also comprise a posting toolbar 406 for creating and/or viewing a user's own posts and/or e-mail, and a post display window 412 for displaying other users' posts 450. It will be appreciated that, as used herein, the term "post" encompasses several categories of postings, which include, but may not be limited to, informational-type posts, polls, and events… As shown in FIG. 4A, …The post display window 412 may display a feed of posts 450, presented in chronological order pursuant to when posted or, alternatively, organized in another manner… the system 300 is capable of arranging posts 450 within each user's post display window 412 in accordance with user-type hierarchies...”; and per [0131]: “…Briefly referring back to FIGS. 4A and 4B, accessing a Conexus and/or other groups through the homepage 400, and the related pages, will now be described. A user can access a Conexus page by either selecting the "My Conexus" link [portal] within the user-established association window 408 of the homepage 400…”; note the combination of information being streamed changes depending upon links/menus [portals], and sorting functionality which have been selected by the user, e.g. as noted per [0215] and e.g. per [0115] a “Course and Group Shortcut Menu 416 that is customizable to display those courses and/or groups most accessed or otherwise selected by the user” and a “Personal Networks 422” link/menu [portal] which are each selectable by the user. Applicant’s “first information stream page” and “second information stream page” reads on these different pages for which specific combinations of information may be selectively streamed into the home page as represented per at least Fig. 4a of Jafari.
PNG
media_image2.png
1029
1299
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) the second information stream page being a next-level page of the first information stream page (Jafari, see citations noted supra, e.g. again at least per Fig. 4A and [0111]-[0120], each of the pages, whose information may be streamed into Jafari’s user’s homepage 400, may be accessed via a link [portal]. Per [0222], Jafari teaches a “RememberIT tool which may be directly accessed from the homepage 400 via Rememberlt tool link 440 (not shown)… The Rememberlt window 1010 may additionally comprise one or more finger icons 1004, each indicating a different classification or level of hierarchy as defined by the user. As shown in FIG. 12B, this user has one post 450 marked with a Level 1 (one string) importance, and one post 450 marked with a Level 2 (two string) importance. By clicking on these icons 1004, a user can further restrict the display to only those marked posts 450 having a specific Level classification. For example, by clicking on the icon 1004 having one string, only those marked posts 450 having a Level I classification will be shown in the window 1010…” Therefore, Examiner understands Jafari teaches a tool by which the use may establish levels of information, such as other user posts, which he wishes to stream within his homepage and therefore, there is motivation to make the functionality of this tool applicable to any information, e.g. from various other pages such as a “course page”, which the user may choose to have streamed into his home page. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jafar’s system/method to explicitly allow information from the various pages [e.g. second information stream pages] which Jafari’s user wishes to stream into his homepage to be various levels [e.g. a next level] page of either his homepage [first information stream page] or of another page because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
PNG
media_image3.png
359
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the information display apparatus is a terminal logged in by a current user, and is configured to receive, from a server, posts uploaded by a publishing terminal (Jafari, see citations noted supra, including at least Fig. 1 and associated disclosure, e.g. [0076]-[0077] regarding client-server configuration for receiving information from clients via server and see Fig. 4a and [0116], teaching: “…The homepage 400 may also comprise a posting toolbar 406 for creating and/or viewing a user's own posts and/or e-mail, and a post display window 412 for displaying other users' posts 450. It will be appreciated that, as used herein, the term "post" encompasses several categories of postings, which include, but may not be limited to, informational-type posts, polls, and events. As shown in FIG. 4A, the homepage 400 may comprise one or more buttons for creating each of these specific types of posts…”);
receive information on a friend relationship or non-friend relationship between the current user and a publishing user corresponding to the posts (Jafari, again see at least Fig. 4a and [0149] teaching: “…A user may also categorize or weigh the association with other user profiles, such as, for example, by assigning a level to the association. For example, for a friendship-type association [i.e. types of friend relationship], the user may assign a level, such as acquaintance [e.g. a non-friend relationship which is a second-type of relationship], friend [first-type of relationship is a friend relationship], good friend [e.g. another type of relationship], and best friend [yet another type of relationship], to the associations between the user's profile and other member profiles…”); and
display posts published by first objects on the first information stream page, wherein the first objects comprise a user who has a friend relationship with the current user (Jafari, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0116]-[0117], Jafari teaches: “…The post display window 412 may display [display] a feed of posts 450 [posts published by first objects on the first information stream page], presented in chronological order pursuant to when posted or, alternatively, organized in another manner…”; i.e. this “organized in another manner” implies the user may organize such posts according to Jafari’s teaching at [0149] noted supra, teaching: “friendship-type association”, including “friend” and “acquaintance” based on the “user-established associations window 408” which is disclosed as “… may include: a Course and Group Shortcut Menu 416 …a Personal Network link 422 for creating a Personal Network, etc…”.
Therefore, in view of these teaching, the Examiner finds this would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Jafari’s received information regarding level of association with the user’s profile, e.g. as disclosed per at least [0112] in view of [0149], e.g. “friend” [friend relationship], “acquaintance” [non-friend relationship], etc… is used as a basis to display Jafari’s posts 450 within window 412 depending on whether the “Personal Networks 422” link is selected for viewing or the a “Course and Group Shortcut Menu 416” is selected because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.);
display posts published by second objects, wherein the second objects comprise a user who is in one or more groups joined by the current user and has a non-friend relationship with the current user, wherein the displayed posts published by second objects are displayed on a second information stream page corresponding to the joined group (Jafari, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0111]-[0120] and Fig. 4a, the user home page may also display posts published by other users [second objects], who are members of one or more of the groups, e.g. classes, which the user [current user] has joined and who are classmates [has a non-friend relationship] with the user [current user], wherein such displayed posts are displayed within the class page [a second information stream page] which corresponds to the class [the joined group]. Note also Fig. 12B and [0221]-[0222].):
wherein different groups correspond to different second information stream pages, and the different second information stream pages correspond to different portals (Jafari, see citations noted supra, including again per [0111]-[0120] and Fig. 4a. Each of the classes [groups] correspond to different class pages [second information stream pages] and these different pages each correspond to a link [portal] as shown in the user’s homepage 400 such as per links [portals] provided under #416 e.g. per [0115]: “…Information and links [portals] relating to at least a portion of the user's user-established associations may be displayed in the user-established associations window 408. As shown in FIG. 4A, the user-established associations window 408 may include: a Course and Group Shortcut Menu 416 [portals] that is customizable to display those courses and/or groups [groups] most accessed or otherwise selected by the user; a system invitation link 418 for inviting third parties to register with/join the course networking system 300;…”);
PNG
media_image4.png
564
354
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the first information stream page is further configured to display a portal of a second information stream page corresponding to one of the one or more groups […] (Jafari, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least Fig. 4a and [0111]-[0120]. Note the homepage [first information stream page] is configured to display links [portals] such as shown for “Course and Group Shortcut Menu 416” for which various links [portals] are displayed, each corresponding to a class/group to which the user is a member; e.g. “Joe Test Course” link [a portal of a second information stream page corresponding to one of the one or more groups])
wherein a portal of a second information stream page of each group is displayed on the first information stream page in a form of a post group bar (Jafari, see again citations noted supra, e.g. again Fig. 4a and [0112]-[0119] and [0149]. For example, Fig. 4a shows window 408 which contains links/menus 416 [portals] to view posts from various groups; e.g. per [0115]: “…Information and links [portals] relating to at least a portion of the user's user-established associations may be displayed in the user-established associations window 408. As shown in FIG. 4A, the user-established associations window 408 may include: a Course and Group Shortcut Menu 416 [a form of a post group bar] that is customizable to display those courses and/or groups most accessed or otherwise selected by the user; a system invitation link 418 for inviting third parties to register with/join the course networking system 300; one or more status links 420 for displaying the status of any outstanding invitations or other pending requests; a Personal Network link 422 for creating a Personal Network (as described in more detail…”; i.e. there are a group of links [portals] within the “Course and Group Shortcut Menu 416” [a form of a post group bar] and these links [portals] are displayed on the user’s homepage [first information stream page].), the post group bar and the posts on the first information stream page being sequentially arranged on the first information stream page based on post publishing time (Jafari, see citations noted supra, again per at least Fig. 4a in view of [0111]-[0120], teaching: “…Course and Group Shortcut Menu 416 that is customizable… The post display window 412 may display a feed of posts 450, presented in chronological order [based on post publishing time] pursuant to when posted or, alternatively, organized in another manner…”; examiner notes that Jafari’s teaching regarding customizable “Course and Group Shortcut Menu 416” [post group bar] suggests the links [portals] therein may also be customized to be chronologically arranged [sequentially arranged etc…] similar to Jafari’s teaching regarding his posts such that the links to the groups are arranged according to the most recent posts from their respective group because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.),
wherein at least one of a name of the corresponding group, an image of the corresponding group, or status information of the corresponding group is displayed in the post group bar (Jafari, see again citations noted supra, e.g. per Fig. 4a the names of the various groups, e.g. “Joe Test Course” [at least one of a name of the group] to which the user belongs are displayed in window 408 under the “Course and Group Shortcut Menu 416” [post group bar]), wherein the portal is provided on the first information stream page for going to the second information stream page with a trigger of the current user (Jafari, see again citations noted surpa, e.g. Fig. 4a as well as 4c and [0112]-[0119] and [0149] further in view of at least [0120]-[0121], e.g.: “…To access a course page, the user need only click [a trigger of the current user] on the course title [i.e. the link/menu which are types of portals] to be automatically linked to the environment in the system 300 associated with that course (i.e. the "course page”)…. For example, by selecting the link 475 [portal] for the desired course [e.g. for going to the second information stream page] (here, "Joe Test Course"), which the user in this example is teaching, the user is shown the course page 480 illustrated in FIG. 4C. Course page 480 comprises several of the same components as homepage 400 and like numerals used between the Figures are representative of like components. For example, similar to homepage 400, course page 480 may comprise an information window 402, navigation toolbar 404 (not shown in FIG. 4C), posting tool bar 406, user window 410, and a post display window 412 displaying one or more posts 450. However, it will be appreciated that certain components of the course page 480----such as information window 402, user window 410, and post display window 412-are specific to the course, rather than a user (as with homepage content)…”),
wherein the information display apparatus is configured to change from display of the first information stream page to only display of the second information stream page only in response to detecting a trigger operation performed by the current user on the portal such that the first information stream page and the second information stream page are displayed separately (Jafari, see again citations noted supra, including also at least [0215] teaching: “…posts 450 displayed on a user's homepage 400 can be searched and/or sorted according to… user-established relationships… For example, in at least one embodiment, a "Sort by" box may be included the homepage 400 and used by a user to selectively… filter the content (such as posts 450, for example)...”; see also at least [0222], teaching e.g.: “…By clicking [trigger operation] on these icons 1004, a user can further restrict the display to only those marked posts 450 having a specific Level classification. For example, by clicking on the icon 1004 having one string, only those marked posts 450 having a Level I classification will be shown in the window 1010…”.)
[…];
and in the case that the current user adds the user who is in the group that the current user joins and has the non-friend relationship with the current user as the friend, a post published by the user added by the current user as the friend is removed from the second information stream page and displayed on the first information stream page (Jafari, see again at least Fig. 4a and Fig. 10G, and [0149]-[0153] teaching various levels of friend association may be assigned to another user: “…For example, for a friendship-type association, the user may assign a level, such as acquaintance, friend, good friend, and best friend, to the associations between the user's profile and other member profiles….”; and per at least [0199]-[0200]: “…For example, if a user selects "Visible to All CN Members," all users of the course networking system 300 will see the post 450, regardless of if a user-established association exists between the posting and viewing users…no other users will see the post 450 [portal of the second information stream page] unless and until the posting user changes [updates] the visibility settings 822)… any combination of these access permission options may be selected such that the posting user can easily define and customize a specific group that will have visibility to the resulting post…”; Therefore, whether Jafari explicitly teaches “removed”, nonetheless the Examiner understands that in a case that the viewing user adds a posting user to a mutually exclusive group, e.g. as friend instead of acquaintance, then posts published by the posting user, who has now been added as a friend, will be displayed to the viewing user as a post by a user who is a friend and will be removed from posts displayed to the viewing user as a post by a user who is an “acquaintance” because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Although Jafari teaches the above limitations, including as noted supra, wherein the first information stream page is further configured to display a portal of a second information stream page corresponding to one of the one or more groups (Jafari, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least Fig. 4a and [0111]-[0120], etc…), Jafari may not explicitly teach that such display of his links [portals] is in response to posts published by second object in the group being updated, nor may he explicitly teach all the other nuances recited below. However, regarding these features, Jafari in view of McBreary teaches the following:
[…display a portal of a second information stream page corresponding to one of the one or more groups] in response to posts published by second object in the group being updated (McBready, see at least [0082]: “…The number of feeds indicated in 172 shows new information [posts by second objects being updated] that a user has not viewed as yet, for example when a friend posts a new My Journal, Photo or Video or even a comment on any Journal, Photo album, Photo, Video Album, or Video. For example the "1" notification 172 [displayed portal of second information stream page] next to the My Journal link in the top navigation bar 102 indicates one new entry on the My Journal page that the user has not yet viewed….”)
wherein a portal for the current user to add the user as a friend is configured for the post published by the user who has the non-friend relationship with the current user and displayed on the second information stream page (McBrearty, see at least Fig. 6 depicting a post by user “Alan” may be viewed and this post is configured with a button “Add to Group” [a portal for the current user to add the user as a friend] which allows a current user to add user “Alan” to a group such as “Best Friends Group”. User “Alan” may be found based on his post to a community group. See also at least [0091]-[0095], teaching, e.g.: “…Find more Friends button 508 leads to a new interface for the user to find additional friends, for example searching by characteristics such as employment, education, activities, interests, hometown, email address, name, etc… Add to Group button 610 allows the user to add the friend, which may be a non-grouped friend, to a user-defined or automatically created friends group…”
PNG
media_image5.png
700
884
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitations in question are merely applying known techniques of McBrearty which are applicable to a known base device/method of Jafari to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of McBrearty to the device/method of Jafari because Jafari and McBrearty are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 3: (previously presented)
Jafari/ McBrearty teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Jafari as shown teaches the following: The information display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the posts published by the first objects further comprising at least one of a post published by a user who has the non-friend relationship with the current user and pushed by a backend of the social application, the user who has the non-friend relationship with the current user is not the user who is in the group that the current user joins and has the non-friend relationship with the current user (Jafari, see citations already noted supra, including at least [0215]-[0222] teaching: posts may be of “friends” [first type of relationship] as well as “acquaintances” (e.g. non-friend) [second-type of relationship] and a user may be in a group with persons of either type of relationship or in separate groups with persons of either type of relationship or not in a group with persons of either type of relationship. The Post which a user sees may be of an “acquaintance” (e.g. non-friend) [second-type of relationship] who is not in a group with the user and this post may be pushed by the server based on system known user interests, user actions, etc…, as noted per at least [0074], e.g.: “…the systems can assess and utilize user interests, actions, associations, affiliations, ranking by peer review, and/or characteristics to provide personalized content… to a user.”; see also [0113]-[0118] and [0155])
Claim 5: (Previously Presented)
Jafari/McBrearty teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Jafari as shown teaches the following:
The information display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of a like control or a comment control is configured for the posts displayed on the first information stream page and the second information stream page (Jafari, see again at [0113]-[0118], and at least Fig. 4a, note that “Likes” are displayed as well as a mechanism for the viewing user to “Like” a post and note that such “Likes” are tabulated for each “Like” of a post made by any user).
Claim 6: (Original)
Jafari/McBrearty teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Jafari as shown teaches the following:
The information display apparatus according to claim 5, wherein likes are visible to the current user in the case that the like control is configured for the posts displayed on the first information stream page and the second information stream page; comments are visible to the current user in the case that the comment control is configured for the posts displayed on the first information stream page and the second information stream page; or, likes and comments are visible to the current user in the case that the like control and the comment control are configured for the posts displayed on the first information stream page and the second information stream page (Jafari, see citations noted supra, e.g. again at least [0113]-[0118], and at least Fig. 4a, note that Likes and comments are visible to the user for all displayed posts).
Claim 12: (Previously Presented)
Jafari/McBrearty teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Jafari as shown teaches the following: The information display method according to claim 11, further comprising at least one of: displaying, on the first information stream page, at least one of a post published by a user who has the non-friend relationship with the current user and pushed by a backend of the social application or an advertisement pushed by the backend of the social application; or displaying, on the second information stream page corresponding to the group that the current user joins, an advertisement related to the group that the current user joins and pushed by the backend of the social application. (Jafari, see citations noted supra in view of at least [0074], e.g.: “…the systems can assess and utilize user interests, actions, associations, affiliations, ranking by peer review, and/or characteristics to provide personalized content and, in at least one embodiment, targeted advertisements, to a user.”; see also [0113]-[0118] and [0155]);
Claim 15: (Previously Presented)
Jafari/McBrearty teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Jafari as shown teaches the following: The information display method according to claim 11, wherein the displaying the posts published by the second objects on the second information stream page corresponding to the group that the current user joins comprises: determining a target group that the current user and the user who has the non-friend relationship with the current user both join; and displaying the post published by the user who has the non-friend relationship with the current user on the second information stream page corresponding to the target group (Jafari, see citations noted supra, e.g. again at least Fig. 4a, and [0113]-[0118] in view of at least [0200], e.g.: “For example, if a user selects "Visible to All CN Members," [target group] all users of the course networking system 300 will see the post 450, regardless of if a user-established association exists [e.g. non-friend relationship] between the posting and viewing users…no other users will see the post 450 unless and until the posting user changes [updates] the visibility settings 822)…”)).
Claim 16: (previously presented)
Jafari/McBrearty teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Jafari as shown teaches the following: The information display method according to claim 15, wherein the determining the target group that the current user and the user who has the non-friend relationship with the current user both join comprises: determining one or more groups that the current user and the user who has the non- friend relationship with the current user both join; and in the case that the number of groups is one, determining the group as the target group; or, in the case that the number of groups is more than one, determining a group with a highest degree of interaction between the current user and the user who has the non- friend relationship with the current user in a plurality of groups as the target group (Jafari, see citations noted supra, at least [0115], teaching e.g.: “…display those courses and/or groups most accessed or otherwise selected by the user…”; i.e. groups are based on most accessed [highest degree of interaction] and per [0151]-[0153], e.g.: “…For example, the visual representation 550 of FIG. 6A includes interaction summaries 560a, 560b, which provide information relating to how many times the visiting user 552 has reflected upon and/or liked the viewed user's 554 content (560a) and how many times the viewed user 554 has reflected upon and/or liked the visiting user's 552 content (560b)… those interactions and relationships displayed in the visual representation 550 may be selected by the system 300 as those that, based on the engagement analytics, appear to be the most relevant to the visiting user 552…”; i.e. groups are based on relationships which are selected by the system and the relationships are based on number of interactions; therefore, although Jafari may not explicitly teach groups based on most [highest degree] of interactions, Jafari does base groups on number of interactions. In view of these findings, there is motivation to not only form groups based on number of interactions but also on most interactions with another user similar to how Jafari already teaches groups may be selected and displayed based on most groups accessed [an interaction] by a user because according to MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Claim 18: (Original)
Jafari/McBrearty teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Jafari as shown teaches the following: An information display system, comprising a publishing terminal, a server, and the display terminal according to claim 17; wherein the publishing terminal is configured to upload corresponding published posts to the server (Jafari, see citations noted supra, e.g. at least Fig. 4a and [0008]); and the server is configured to find a user who has a friend relationship with a publishing user corresponding to the published post (Jafari, see citations noted supra, e.g. at least [0149]-[0153], e.g. “friendship-type association”) and a user, in a group that the publishing user joins, who has a non-friend relationship with the publishing user (Jafari, see at least [0149]-[0153] e.g. “acquaintance” and/or group associations), and send the published post and a relationship between a display user of the display terminal and the publishing user to the display terminal of the user who has the friend relationship with the publishing user and the display terminal of the user who has the non-friend relationship with the publishing user (Jafari, see citations noted supra, e.g. again at least [0113]-[0118] and Fig. 4a in view of the aforementioned citations; posts are displayed to a viewing user and the group or type of association the user has with the posting user is identified with each post).
Claim 19: (Original)
Jafari/McBrearty teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Jafari as shown teaches the following: The system according to claim 18, wherein the server is configured to find the user who has the friend relationship with the publishing user corresponding to the published post and the user, in a group that the publishing user joins, who has the non- friend relationship with the publishing user in the following manner: determining the user who has the friend relationship with the publishing user in a friend database of the publishing user, selecting the group that the publishing user joins in a group database of the publishing user, and determining the user, in the group that the publishing user joins, who has the non-friend relationship with the publishing user (Jafari, see citations noted supra, e.g. again at least [0113]-[0118] and [0222] and Fig. 4a in view of the aforementioned citations; posts are displayed to a viewing user and the group or type of association the user has with the posting user is identified with each post; user may filter posts based on user defined classifications to view only posts which meet classification filter criteria; e.g. note [0222]: “…By clicking on these icons 1004, a user can further restrict the display to only those marked posts 450 having a specific Level classification. For example, by clicking on the icon 1004 having one string, only those marked posts 450 having a Level I classification will be shown in the window 1010…”)
Claim 20: (Original)
Jafari/McBrearty teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Jafari as shown teaches the following: The system according to claim 18, wherein the server is further configured to actively push at least one of a post published by a user who has the non- friend relationship with the display user of the display terminal or a corresponding advertisement to the display terminal (Jafari, see citations noted supra, e.g. again at least [0113]-[0118] and Fig. 4a e.g. a post is pushed to the viewing user by a user who is part of group “moderator” which is a non-friend type of relationship with the user; also note per at least [0074], e.g.: “…the systems can assess and utilize user interests, actions, associations, affiliations, ranking by peer review, and/or characteristics to provide personalized content and, in at least one embodiment, targeted advertisements, to a user.”; see also [0113]-[0118] and [0155]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1, 11, 17 and canceled claims 2, 4, 7-10, 13-14 on 04/16/2026. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 04/16/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided supra. Note the new 35 USC 112(b) and 112(a) rejection and the Examiner maintains the 35 USC 103 rejection in view of claim interpretation noted per the 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights