Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 01/02/2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2,5,8,10-11,13-16,18-19 and 21-23 are pending in the case. Independent claims are 1, 15 and 18.
Priority
Application 17726160 filed 04/21/2022 claims foreign priority to 202111204212.8, filed 10/15/2021. Priority document received 05/23/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 10-11, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. US 20180039698 A1, (hereinafter Lewis) in view of Witkowski et al. US 20170277424 A1, (hereinafter Witkowski) in view of Carriero et al. US 20140304618 A1, (hereinafter Carriero) in view of Kendrick et al. US 20150007004 A1, (hereinafter Kendrick).
As to independent claim 1, Lewis teaches:
A comment sharing method, comprising:
receiving a sharing request from a user for a target comment, wherein the target comment is a comment on an object in a first application (See Fig. 7 with [0095-0097] user interface 700 of an application receives sharing request to share both the media content 702 [i.e., object] and a user-composed target comment 704 associated with the media content 702 from the user. In regards to claimed first application, see [0063] which list examples of what kind of application user interface can be used by the user to perform the sharing request.
See alternative embodiment in Fig. 5 with [0059] sharing request wherein a second user shares a video object along with target comments comprised of both the first user and second user’s comments regarding the video object, and this is shared to a third user. The sharing occurs within a social media platform application. Is relevant to claimed target comment published by at least one other user);
displaying a sharing interface, on which a first list of identities of users to be shared is included (See Fig. 7 with [0095-0097] user interface 700 is seen as the sharing interface upon which a first list of user identities 706 is included), wherein the users to be shared are users associated with users of the first application in the first application (See Fig. 8 with [0101] social media platform for multiple users. See also [0062] which mentions two logged in users sharing with each other; relevant to claimed logged-in users), wherein the sharing interface further includes a custom tag, which includes at least one of the following: a tag of an identity of the user that published the target comment (See Fig. 7 sharing interface contains a user identifier 712, and see with [0097] – “In some embodiments, user identifier 712 can be an icon, graphic, image, text, hyperlink, any other suitable user interface element, or any suitable combination thereof.”, in other words the user identifier 712 fits the definition of the claimed custom tag since the user identifier 712 can be any other suitable user interface element such as a tag. See also the pdf of google search history for the software definition of a “tag”.), a tag of an identity of object (Optional limitation due to Markush grouping), and a tag of an identity of the user to which a comment replied by the target comment belongs (Optional limitation due to Markush grouping);
in response to an operation by the user on an identity of a first target user in the first list, transmitting information about the target comment to a client of the first target user through the first application (See Fig. 7 with [0095-0097] user can select one or more social connections 706 [i.e., claimed first list containing identity of a first target user] to transmit/share both the media item 702 and comment 704; in regards to claimed “through the first application”, see [0101] social media application), wherein the information about the target comment is a comment card which includes contents of the target comment (See Fig. 8. Fig. 7 allows user to perform a share request, and Fig. 8 is the result of the share request. See Fig. 8 with [0101] mentions a social media platform page that contains a shared feed item 810; the shared feed item 810 is a result of the Fig. 7 user interface. The shared feed item 810 is interpreted to be the claimed comment card.), and at least one of the identity of the user who published the target comment (See Fig. 8 which shows the identity of the user who published the comment 810 as “videosharer”), the identity of the object (See Fig. 8 which shows the identity of the shared media object as “Thumbnail for video”), and identity of a user to which a comment replied by the target comment belongs to (Optional limitation due to Markush grouping);
wherein at least one of the identities of the user who published the target comment (See Fig. 7 user identifier 712 and as explained above with [0097]), the identity of the object (See Fig. 7 video 702 “Media Content to be Shared” and see Fig. 8 “Thumbnail for video”), and identity of a user to which a comment replied by the target comment belongs to (Optional limitation due to Markush grouping) is added to the comment card in response to the user selecting a corresponding icon (See Fig. 8 shared feed item 810 which contains user identifier 712 “videosharer” and “Thumbnail for video” is interpreted to be the comment card, and furthermore this shared feed item 810 is a direct result of the share request initiated in Fig. 7. The share request as explained above with Fig. 7 and [0095-0097] consists of user selecting one or more social connections 706, which teaches in response to the user selecting a corresponding icon);
wherein the comment card is generated by filling the contents of the target comment (See Fig. 8 which illustrates a social media feed page, which is interpreted to be the claimed comment card, and that this social media feed page displays textual contents of the target comment thus was generated and filled as claimed), and at least one of the identity of the user who published the target comment(See Fig. 7 user identifier 712 and as explained above with [0097]), the identity of the object (See Fig. 7 video 702 “Media Content to be Shared” and see Fig. 8 “Thumbnail for video”), and the identity of the user to which a comment replied by the target comment belongs to (Optional limitation due to Markush grouping) into a comment card page (See Fig. 9 which illustrates a social media feed page, which is interpreted to be a comment card page).
Lewis does not teach: is added to the comment card in response to the user selecting a corresponding tag in the custom tags.
However, Lewis teaches in an alternative embodiment shown in Fig. 1 as well as within the main embodiment shown in Fig. 7, the usage of custom tags, in other words Lewis further teaches: a corresponding tag in the custom tags (See Fig. 1 which shows custom tags 120, 124, 126, 128, 132. Evidence that they should be considered as tags can be found in [0032] – “User identifiers 120, 124, 126, and 128 can be any suitable user identifiers. In some embodiments, user identifiers 120, 124, 126, and 128 can be any user interface element suitable for identifying a user account, such as a hyperlink, text, an image (e.g., an icon), any other element suitable for identifying a user account, or any suitable combination thereof.”. See also embodiment shown by Fig. 7 user identifier 712 which as explained above should also be considered as a custom tag).
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 secondary user icons 706 shown in Fig. 7 as taught by Lewis to become custom tags, which Lewis has been shown utilizing within the user interface of Fig. 7 as well as within another alternative embodiment shown in Fig. 1. Motivation to do so would be for faster recognition of a secondary user’s identity by representing the secondary user not just by using an icon but a keyword or label as well, which is known as a tag.
Lewis as modified does not explicitly teach: in response to the user's operation on an identity of a target second application among the identities of at least one second application, displaying the identities of users to be shared in the target second application,
wherein the users to be shared in the target second application are users associated with logged-in users of the target second application in the target second application;
in response to the user's operation on an identity of a second target user among the identities of users to be shared in the target second application, transmitting the information about the target comment to a client of the second target user through the target second application.
Witkowski teaches: in response to the user's operation on the identity of a target second application among the identities of at least one second application, displaying the identities of users to be shared in the target second application (See [0233] a favorite application is currently running, in other words user has inputted an execute operation for this favorite application already. Then the user interface displays a list of contacts to message/share with in response to user currently running the favorite application.
See also [0077] – “and/or when using a certain application hosted on the respective client device”.
See also [0084] content of the currently running application.
See also [0086] context of the currently running application.
),
Wherein the at least one second application is different from the first application (See cited [0233] above, the Examiner has interpreted the “favorite application currently running” as the claimed second application. Witkowski teaches various different applications in other embodiments, any of which can be interpreted as the claimed “first application”, for example the applications listed in [0132]),
wherein the users to be shared in the target second application are users associated with logged-in users of the target second application in the target second application (See [0270] – “The analysis may be based on the current presence of the friends determined by the presence server, for example, to share the article with friends that are currently online.”, in other words the recipient users are users that are logged in users of a certain application);
in response to an operation by the user on an identity of a second target user among the identities of users to be shared in the target second application, transmitting the information about the target comment to a client of the second target user through the target second application (See Figs. 4, 7, and 12 and their corresponding paragraphs, in view of the alternative embodiment described in paragraphs cited above.).
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 method of Lewis to present user contacts that are related to a currently executed application for sharing content using the currently executed application as taught by Witkowski. Motivation to do so would be for saving the user time by presenting the most likely candidates as soon as possible who have the same type of application available to use for the communication.
Lewis as modified does not explicitly teach: receiving a sharing request from a user for a target comment published by at least one other user.
Carriero teaches: receiving a sharing request from a user for a target comment published by at least one other user (See Fig. 4 with [0020] an image 200 and its comment section 204 has been shared among multiple users, and the comments are from the multiple users. See Fig. Share button 110 with [0019] for the user interface to receive a sharing request from a user to share both the image 100 and comment section 104.).
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 user interface of Lewis to include a comment section where the comments are from multiple different users as taught by Carriero. Motivation to do so would be for facilitating a discussion among users for stronger user interface engagement.
Lewis teaches the comment card being a comment card page as cited above, but Lewis as modified does not teach that the comment card page is, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a user definable comment card template that defines contents and location of the contents in advance, in other words Lewis as modified does not teach: wherein the comment card is generated by filling the contents of the target comment, and at least one of the identity of the user who published the target comment, the identity of the object, and the identity of the user to which a comment replied by the target comment belongs to into a comment card template, wherein the commend card template defines contents in the comment card and location of the contents in the comment card in advance.
Kendrick, as a teaching reference, teaches: wherein the comment card is generated by filling the contents of the target comment (See Fig. 7 with [0028] the photobook pages are generated for preview by filling in user comments as content for the page as defined by the user. Thus since the photobook page displays comments, the photobook pages are seen as comment cards), and at least one of the identity of the user who published the target comment (See Fig. 7 which shows profile image identities of users that are commentators), the identity of the object (See Fig. 7 which shows a photo object titled/identifiable as “sleepy time!” on the left side of the page), and the identity of the user to which a comment replied by the target comment belongs to (Optional Limitation) into a comment card template (See Abstract which mentions photobook templates that are fillable/customizable by a user), wherein the comment card template defines contents in the comment card and location of the contents in the comment card in advance (The Examiner interprets this limitation as user-definable templates that can be defined by a user, thus these templates are defined “in advance” under broadest reasonable interpretation. See Fig. 10 with [0023] user picks a template for a photobook containing comments of other users on social media, thus these are user definable comment card templates. The paragraph further mentions after user picks a template, the user defines the contents in the comment card template thus teaches claim limitation “defines contents in the comment card”. In regards to claim limitation “and location of the contents in the comment card”, see [0036] – “ e.g. having the photo and comments on a single page vs. having the photo and comments on adjoining opposite pages, i.e. a spread” thus teaches the limitation).
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 social media feed page as taught by Lewis to include the teaching of user-definable pages as taught by Kendrick; Kendrick’s teaching would have suggested to Lewis to e.g. make the social media feed pages customizable by a user by using preferences inputted by the user in advance on how the arrangement of content locations and type of content feeds the user wishes to see. Motivation to do so would be for combining prior art elements according to known methods (i.e., the teaching of preferences inputted by the user in advance) to yield predictable results (i.e., social media feed page being customizable based on preferences inputted by the user in advance) (KSR Rationale A).
As to dependent claim 2, Lewis as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Lewis does not teach: before displaying the interface, determining the users to be shared displayed in the first list and their display order according to the number of interactions or the time of last interaction between the logged-in user and the users to be shared;
or, determining the users to be shared displayed in the first list and their display order according to the attributes of the users to be shared.
Witkowski further teaches: before displaying the interface, determining the users to be shared displayed in the first list and their display order according to the number of interactions or the time of last interaction between the logged-in user and the users to be shared (Fig. 4 shows a first list of users to be shared with. See [0077] and [0040] which mentions re-ordering the list of contacts, thus the list is ordered. See [0086] the selecting and ordering of user contacts may be based on “and/or history of interactions between the contact and the user (e.g., history of sharing similar content of the running application with the contacts)”);
or, determining the users to be shared displayed in the first list and their display order according to the attributes of the users to be shared (See [0270] known favorite contacts of the user, is seen as an attribute of the contact.).
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 method of Lewis to select and order the list of users based on interaction history or favorites as taught by Witkowski. Motivation to do so would be for saving the user time by presenting the most likely candidates as soon as possible.
As to dependent claim 5, Lewis as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Lewis teaches the target comment as cited above but Lewis does not teach: displaying a second list in response to the user's search operation, wherein the second list includes identities of all users associated with the search operation;
in response to the user's operation on an identity of a third target user in the second list, transmitting the information about the target comment to a client of the third target user through the first application.
Witkowski further teaches: displaying a second list in response to the user's search operation, wherein the second list includes identities of all users associated with the search operation (See Fig. 6 with [0255-0256] search for a contact);
in response to the user's operation on an identity of a third target user in the second list, transmitting the information about the content to a client of the third target user through the first application (See Fig. 9 step 918 with [0270] share articles).
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 method of Lewis to select and order the list of users based on interaction history or favorites as taught by Witkowski. Motivation to do so would be for saving the user time by presenting the most likely candidates as soon as possible.
As to dependent claim 8, Lewis as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Lewis further teaches: before transmitting information about the target comment to a client of the first target user through the first application,
generating the comment card (See Fig. 8 with [0101], the feed items UI was interpreted as the comment card. Furthermore, generating a portion of the comment card is seen the same as generating the comment card. Thus Fig. 7 editable comment section 704 is seen as allowing the user to generate the comment card before the transmitting step.).
As to dependent claim 10, Lewis as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as cited above.
Lewis further teaches: wherein the contents of the target comment and the identity of the user who published the target comment are extracted from the target comment (See Fig. 5 step 506 with [0086] identify, i.e. extract, the identity of users who engaged in the conversation. See also [0082] information that identifies the conversation [i.e., contents of target comment]);
As to dependent claim 11, Lewis as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Lewis further teaches: the sharing interface also includes an input box (See Fig. 7 input box 704); and
the method further comprises: before transmitting information about the target comment to a client of the first target user through the first application,
in response to a user inputting information in the input box, adding the information in the input box to the information about the target comment (See [0096] compose a comment to be shared).
As to independent claim 15, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 16, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 2 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 17, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 4 as cited above.
As to independent claim 18, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 19, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 2 as cited above.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. US 20180039698 A1, (hereinafter Lewis) in view of Witkowski et al. US 20170277424 A1, (hereinafter Witkowski) in view of Carriero et al. US 20140304618 A1, (hereinafter Carriero) in view of Kendrick et al. US 20150007004 A1, (hereinafter Kendrick) in view of Hori et al. US 20220300134 A1, (hereinafter Hori) in view of Yang et al. US 20210352173 A1, (hereinafter Yang).
As to dependent claim 13, Lewis as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Lewis further teaches: before receiving a sharing request from a user for a target comment, displaying the object (See Fig. 7 media content 702 is displayed even before user initiates a share request);
displaying a comment area for the object (See Fig. 7 area 704); and
displaying an operation list, wherein the operation list includes controls for at least one operation on the target comment, and the controls include a sharing control (See Fig. 7 user can either perform selections on list 706 or list 708 for performing a sharing control operation).
Lewis teaches the target comment and the comment area as cited above but Lewis as modified does not teach: displaying a comment area for the object in response to the user's request for the comment area for the object;
Hori teaches: displaying a comment area for the object in response to the user's request for the comment area for the object (See Figs. 8-9 with [0112] comment section 11 displayed when icon pressed).
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 user interface of Lewis to include an icon for opening up a comment section in the user interface as taught by Hori. Motivation to do so would be for conserving screen space until the point when the comment section is needed.
Lewis as modified does not teach: displaying an operation list in response to detecting a preset operation by the user on the target comment in the comment area.
Yang teaches: displaying an operation list in response to detecting a preset operation by the user on the target item in the area (See [0056] – “A long press on one menu item by the user will result in popping-up of a corresponding sub-menu group”).
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 user interface of Lewis to include long press that opens a submenu for a menu item as taught by Yang. Motivation to do so would be for conserving screen space until the point when the submenu is needed.
As to dependent claim 14, Lewis as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as cited above.
Lewis as modified by Yang further teaches: wherein the preset operation is long press (See Yang [0056] long press) or double click.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. US 20180039698 A1, (hereinafter Lewis) in view of Witkowski et al. US 20170277424 A1, (hereinafter Witkowski) in view of Carriero et al. US 20140304618 A1, (hereinafter Carriero) in view of Kendrick et al. US 20150007004 A1, (hereinafter Kendrick) in view of Mukherjee et al. US 20160073034 A1, (hereinafter Mukherjee).
As to dependent claim 21, Lewis as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as cited above.
Lewis teaches the transmitting of information about the target comment to a client of the first target user through the first application as cited above, but Lewis as modified does not teach: wherein the method further comprises:
before transmitting information about the target comment to a client of the first target user through the first application,
determining the contents in the information about the target comment in response to an operation by the user on the custom tag.
Mukherjee teaches: wherein the sharing interface further includes a custom tag, which includes at least one of the following:
the tag of the identity of object (See [0018-0019] tag name), and
determining the contents in response to the user's operation on the custom tag (See Fig. 5 with [0019] user touches a tag to display thumbnails [i.e., contents] of one or more images, the tag and the one or more image share a common subject/content).
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 custom tags taught by Lewis as modified by Lewis’s alternative embodiment to include custom tags that when selected would present predefined content related to the subject of the tag as taught by Mukherjee. Motivation to do so would be to not only share comments, but share any images that the target user to be shared with is within, for the benefit of sharing images between friends for improving friendship as suggested by Mukherjee paragraph [0005].
As to dependent claim 22, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 21 as cited above.
As to dependent claim 23, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 21 as cited above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments pertaining to the previous 103 rejections has been considered but are not found persuasive. The amendments correspond to the limitations of canceled claim 4.
Applicant argues on page 14 of the remarks that “but clearly do not involve an operation of selecting the desired application first and then selecting the users to share therefrom”. The Applicant is looking at other embodiments of Witkowski and concluding that Witkowski’s user interface does not teach the claim limitation. For the claim limitation, the Examiner has cited paragraph [0233] from Witkowski which discloses an alternative embodiment where the currently running application (i.e., which has been selected to be desired by the user beforehand) is used to generate a corresponding set of users that are selectable for sharing. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 14 the claim limitations should be interpreted as “instead of selecting the user to be shared from the target second application” and that the claim limitations is not equivalent to prior art Witkowski’s disclosure of “friends related to the user of the current client”. Examiner disagrees because the Examiner relied on a different embodiment of Witkowski since the Examiner has cited paragraph [0233] from Witkowski to teach those claim limitations and the paragraph recites “When the user interface is activated while one of the favorite applications is running, those contacts that indicate that the running application is one of their favorites may be considered for selection in the priority list”. In other words, the users that are to be selected for sharing are clearly based on the currently running application. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 15 that the cited prior art does not disclose “sharing via a comment card”. Examiner asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a comment card” could be any digital item that is being shared, and the claim 1 further recites that the comment card identity of the user who published the comment, the identity of the object, both as part of the Markush grouping. In the previous office action page 5, the Examiner stated that the shared feed item 810 is interpreted to be the claimed comment card since the shared feed item 810 does contain in Fig. 8 the identity of the object and identity of the user. Applicant’s argument does not distinctly point out why the claimed comment card cannot be interpreted as the shared feed item 810 which appears to meet the claim’s conditions to be a comment card. Applicant’s argument argues that the comment card has those conditions and that Lewis does not teach those conditions thus cannot be a comment card, which appears not to be the case.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID LUU whose telephone number is (571)270-0703. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Tuesday 11 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 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, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID LUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights