DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s submission filed on November 17, 2025. Claims 9, 20, and 23-55 were previously canceled. Claims 1-8, 10-19, and 21-22 are pending and are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 17, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on November 17, 2025. The Examiner has acknowledged the amended claims 1-4 and 12-15. Claims 9, 20, and 23-55 were previously canceled. Claims 1-8, 10-19, and 21-22 are pending and are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments (Remarks) filed November 17, 2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited art does not disclose each and every limitation of amended claims 1 and 12. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner uses Fig. 2, ref. #208 “Unhide” and Col. 5, lines 18-21 in order to align with the new limitation of “wherein the indicator is selectable to reveal the plurality of hidden content items and at least a portion of the plurality of hidden content items is non-sequential”. The flexibility of a selectable control shows that there is no sequence or arranged order that is supposed to be followed through. The rest of the amendments set forth were just reworded from the original claim language or added details that were already mapped and therefore have been rejected using the same prior art. See also 102 rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 12-16, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8826169 B1 to Yacoub et al. (hereinafter, “Yacoub”).
Regarding claim 1, Yacoub discloses: A method comprising:
determining that a plurality of hidden content items are hidden from display in a user interface (“This disclosure includes techniques and arrangements for collapsing and/or hiding content of a digital content item. For instance, an electronic device may present content of a content item, such as on a display associated with the electronic device” [Col. 2, lines 16-21]);
enabling a safe mode for indicating an availability of the plurality of hidden content items (“In some implementations, an icon, notification, or other indicator may be displayed in the location at which the portion of the content is hidden. For example, if one or more lines of text are collapsed or otherwise hidden, the indicator may indicate how many lines of text are hidden. Similarly, if one or more chapters of a content item are hidden, the indicator may identify the one or more chapters that are hidden at the location in the content item. Further, in some examples, the indicator may include a selectable control or button to enable a user to expand or unhide the hidden portion of content” [Col. 2, lines 49-58] [Examiner notes that this text describes a controlled environment where only indicators are shown – not the hidden content itself – which fits the idea of a safe or limited mode. The presence of an indicator to show that something is hidden and how much is exactly about indicating the availability of the hidden content. It also extends to the idea by giving the user an option to interact with the indicator to reveal the hidden content, which reinforces the controlled, safe nature of the mode]; “Upon selection of the portion of content, an interface may be presented to the user to enable the user to elect to hide the selected content” [Col. 2, lines 25-27]);
detecting an interaction corresponding to the plurality of hidden content items in the user interface (“For instance, the hidden content might only be permitted to be unhidden after the occurrence of an event, the arrival of a specified date or time, passage of a specified amount of time, and so forth. Alternatively, the hidden content may be unhidden after the other user or content provider, etc., unlocks the hidden content” [Col. 2, lines 62-65]); and
based at least in part on determining that the safe mode is active and detecting the interaction, generating, for display in the user interface, an indicator that the plurality of hidden content items are available for display (“In some implementations, an icon, notification, or other indicator may be displayed in the location at which the portion of the content is hidden. For example, if one or more lines of text are collapsed or otherwise hidden, the indicator may indicate how many lines of text are hidden. Similarly, if one or more chapters of a content item are hidden, the indicator may identify the one or more chapters that are hidden at the location in the content item. Further, in some examples, the indicator may include a selectable control or button to enable a user to expand or unhide the hidden portion of content” [Col. 2, lines 49-58] [Examiner notes that this text describes a controlled environment where only indicators are shown – not the hidden content itself – which fits the idea of a safe or limited mode. The presence of an indicator to show that something is hidden and how much is exactly about indicating the availability of the hidden content. It also extends to the idea by giving the user an option to interact with the indicator to reveal the hidden content, which reinforces the controlled, safe nature of the mode]; “Alternatively, in some implementations, the indicator 204 may not be used, and the content item 106 may smoothly transition from content 210, before the location 202, to content 212, after the location 202, with no detectable break or indicator 204 at the location 202 of the hidden content. Other variations will be apparent to those” [Col. 5, lines 42-49] [Examiner notes that this indicator is seen as a detectable measure as it can indicate which hidden contents are available for display when they are]),
wherein the indicator is selectable to reveal the plurality of hidden content items and at least a portion of the plurality of hidden content items is non-sequential (“In some implementations, an icon, notification, or other indicator may be displayed in the location at which the portion of the content is hidden. For example, if one or more lines of text are collapsed or otherwise hidden, the indicator may indicate how many lines of text are hidden. Similarly, if one or more chapters of a content item are hidden, the indicator may identify the one or more chapters that are hidden at the location in the content item. Further, in some examples, the indicator may include a selectable control or button to enable a user to expand or unhide the hidden portion of content” [Fig. 2, ref. #208 “Unhide” and Col. 5, lines 18-21] [Examiner wants to note that the flexibility of a selectable control shows that there is no sequence or arranged order that is supposed to be followed through]).
Claim 12 recites substantially the same limitation as claim 1, the form of a system for implementing the corresponding method, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale. Yacoub further disclosed a user interface configured to display content (Fig. 1, ref. #106, also claim 15, “a display”), and control circuitry configured to perform the corresponding method (claim 15, “one or more processors”).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Yacoub discloses: receiving a selection of an option to display hidden content; in response to receiving the selection; unhiding the plurality of hidden content items; and displaying in the user interface a plurality of content items that were previously hidden in the user interface (“In some implementations, an icon, notification, or other indicator may be displayed in the location at which the portion of the content is hidden. For example, if one or more lines of text are collapsed or otherwise hidden, the indicator may indicate how many lines of text are hidden. Similarly, if one or more chapters of a content item are hidden, the indicator may identify the one or more chapters that are hidden at the location in the content item. Further, in some examples, the indicator may include a selectable control or button to enable a user to expand or unhide the hidden portion of content” [Fig. 2, ref. #208 “Unhide” and Col. 5, lines 18-21]; “This disclosure includes techniques and arrangements for collapsing and/or hiding content of a digital content item. For instance, an electronic device may present content of a content item, such as on a display associated with the electronic device” [Col. 2, lines 16-21]).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Yacoub discloses: wherein the indicator comprises an identifier that indicates the plurality of hidden content items are related (“In this example, suppose that the content item 106 is a travel guide of Spain and that the user is only planning to travel to Madrid while traveling in Spain. Accordingly, the user may access the table of contents 402 of the content item 106, and may highlight or otherwise select one or more chapters 404 that the user desires to hide in the content item 106. Thus, as illustrated in FIG. 4, at 406, the user may elect to hide chapters 4-16, which are not related to Madrid. For example, suppose that the user has already selected and hidden chapter 16, and has now selected the identifiers for chapters 4-15. Upon making the selection 406, the device 100 may present the user an interface or selectable button 408 that enables the user to hide portions of the content item 106 corresponding to the selected chapters 4-15. Consequently, in this example, rather than having to select the actual portion of the content to be hidden, the user may select an identifier of the content portion, e.g., a chapter name or chapter identifier in this example, and selection of the identifier of the portion of content results in the corresponding portion of content being hidden when the user accesses the location of that portion of content in the content item 106. Further, in the table of contents 402, the chapter identifiers themselves may not be hidden. Rather, the chapter identifiers may remain visible, and an annotation, icon, or other indicator 410 may be added next to each chapter identifier indicating that the corresponding chapter of the content item is currently hidden, as indicated adjacent to the chapter identifier for chapter 16” [Col. 6, lines 9-36] [Examiner notes that this text describes a real life example to discuss an annotation, icon, or other indicator (410) being added next to chapter identifiers in the table of contents which aligns with the idea of the indicator containing an identifier hat shows the chapters are hidden and related to the user's actions. The relationship between the hidden content items (chapters 4-16) is shown by the shared indicator that marks them as hidden]).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Yacoub discloses: accessing metadata corresponding to a second plurality of content items to be displayed in the user interface, wherein the second plurality of content items to be displayed comprises the plurality of hidden content items (“In some implementations, each content item 106 may include content 702, such as text, images, audio, video, or the like, and may further include the metadata 720 that is associated with the content item content 702. For example, the content provider 704, the author, the publisher, etc., may provide or may generate metadata 720 for a corresponding content item 106” [Col. 11, lines 53-59] [Examiner notes that text establishes the idea of metadata associated with content items and explains that metadata can contain additional information, potentially including identifiers for hidden or related content]);
determining that at least one metadata value from the metadata indicates the plurality of hidden content items are related (“Further, as discussed above, in some cases, a portion of content 702 of the content item 106 may be hidden by the content provider, the author, the publisher, or another entity other than the user. Accordingly, the content item 106 may be delivered to the user (or made available for delivery to the user) with some portion of content already hidden, such as discussed above with respect to FIG. 6. In some cases, the hidden content information 734 is included in the same file as the content 702, while in other cases, the hidden content information 734 may be maintained in metadata 720 corresponding to the particular instance of the content item 106” [Col. 13, lines 44-55] [Examiner notes that this text discusses how metadata (including hidden content information) may be used to identify or relate portions of content that are hidden]);
updating the metadata corresponding to the plurality of hidden content items to comprise an identifier that the plurality of hidden content items are related based on the at least one metadata value (“Accordingly, an intermediary, such as a wireless network provider (not shown), or the like, may make the content item 106 available to a particular electronic device 100, or may otherwise provide the content item to the particular electronic device 100, and may further provide for synchronization of metadata, such as hidden content information. For purposes of this disclosure, "providing" or "making available" by the content provider may include any intermediaries that perform delivery of the content items and/or information related to the content items, such as metadata” [Col. 13, lines 58-67] [Examiner notes that this text aligns as it shows that the metadata has the potential to be updated during synchronization or delivery]); and
marking the plurality of hidden content items as one or more related content items based on the identifier (“FIG. 6 illustrates an example in which one or more portions of content may be hidden by a provider of the content item, such as by an author, publisher, or a content item provider. In this example, an indicator 602 is located adjacent to a location of hidden content that may be unhidden by the user. For instance, the indicator 602 may be a "+" sign that may be selected by the user to unhide the hidden content. In the example of FIG. 6, suppose that the user has selected an indicator to unhide content associated with the identifier for Chapter 6, i.e., "Basque Country." The selection may result in another indicator 604, such as a "-" sign, being displayed adjacent to the location at which the hidden content is unhidden. Accordingly, the unhidden content 606 in this example includes a plurality of subheadings of the Chapter 6, namely, "Bilbao," "San Sebastian," and "Guernica." The user may tap the "-" sign to again hide the unhidden content 606, which will result in a "+" sign being displayed adjacent to the identifier for Chapter 6” [Col. 8, lines 22-39] [Examiner notes that the indicator 602 and 604 are used to mark the hidden and unhidden content items, showing that they are related to the identifier for chapter 6. The indicator changes based on the action the user takes (hiding or unhiding), which reflects a relationship between the hidden content and the identifier. This marker of hidden content based on the identifier aligns with the claim language]).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Yacoub discloses: preventing display of one or more hidden content items that are unrelated to the one or more related content items (“Thus, in a manner similar to that described above, the user may keep visible a subset 414 of the maps 412 related to Madrid and Spain in general, while hiding one or more other maps 416 that are not related to areas to which the user is traveling” [Col. 6, lines 47-51]).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Yacoub discloses: wherein the at least one metadata value comprises at least one of a location, an event, a time period, a user identifier, geospatial coordinates, a tagged user ID, a content source, a usage type, a license type, or one or more keywords (“Thus, the metadata 720 including a location of hidden content may be contained in a separate file, or in other examples, may be combined with the content 702 into a single file” [Col. 10, lines 57-59]).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Yacoub discloses: wherein the indicator is indicative of how many content items are hidden (“In some implementations, an icon, notification, or other indicator may be displayed in the location at which the portion of the content is hidden. For example, if one or more lines of text are collapsed or otherwise hidden, the indicator may indicate how many lines of text are hidden. Similarly, if one or more chapters of a content item are hidden, the indicator may identify the one or more chapters that are hidden at the location in the content item. Further, in some examples, the indicator may include a selectable control or button to enable a user to expand or unhide the hidden portion of content” [Col. 2, lines 49-58]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 6, 8, 11, 17, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yacoub in view of US 2022/0179665 A1 to Rathod.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the combination of Yacoub-Rathod disclose: receiving a request to hide content based on the first image; executing one or more relatedness analysis algorithms based on the first image; generating, based on executing the one or more relatedness analysis algorithms, relatedness scores corresponding to the one or more related content items by: comparing the first image to each content item of the one or more related content items; and comparing metadata of the first image to metadata of each content item of the one or more related content items (Rathod “Google Image Search™ search and present matched or some level identical images based on user provided image. Present invention enables user to provide or upload or set or apply image or image of part of or particular object, item, face of people, brand, logo, thing, product or object model and/or provide textual description, keywords, tags, metadata, structured fields and associate values, templates, samples & requirement specification and/or provide one or more conditions including similar, exact match, partially match, include & exclude, Boolean operators including AND/OR/NOT/+/−/Phrases, rules. Based on provided object model, object type, metadata, object criteria & conditions server identifies, matches, recognize photos or videos stored by server or accessed but server provided from one or more sources, databases, networks, applications, devices, storage mediums and present to users wherein presented media includes series of or collections of or groups of or slide shows of photos or merged or sequences of or collection of videos or live streams. For example plurality of merchant can upload videos of available products and/or associate details which server stores at server database. Searching user is enabled to provide or input or select or upload one or more image(s) or object model of particular object or product e.g. “mobile device” and provide particular location or place name as search query. Based on said search query server matches or identifies said object e.g. “mobile device” with recognized or detected or identified object inside videos and/or photos and/or live stream and/or one or more types of media stored or accessed from one or more sources and present or present merged or series of said identified or searched or matched videos and/or photos and/or live stream and/or one or more type of media to searching user or contextual user or requested user or user(s) of network” [0010] [Examiner interprets this text outlining a process and method that would logically constitute the steps of a relatedness algorithm discussing server matching/identifying content based on input, which corresponds to generating relatedness scores based on the matching content. It first describes the user’s ability to provide or upload an image, which corresponds to receiving a request. The first image refers to the image the user uploads or specifies as part of their request and it becomes the basis for the system’s actions. The request to hide content relies on the uploaded image (the “first image”) as the key reference point for what the system will process, analyze, or filter. The system uses the “first image” to determine what content is considered related (via analysis or comparison) and which content should be hidden, filtered, or excluded as part of the request. The mention of conditions like “include & exclude” aligns with the idea of a request to hide content because it allows the user to control which content is displayed or excluded based on the image or metadata. Lastly, the server identifying, matching, and recognizing photos or videos stored by the server or accessed by the server describes the execution of a relatedness analysis algorithm, where the server runs and processes the input image to identify and match it with content stored in its database]).
Thus, it 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, to combine the method of Yacoub with the added structure of Rathod for the advantage of being able to recognize, detect, or identify object inside videos and/or photos and/or live stream and/or one or more types of media stored or accessed from one or more sources [Rathod 0010].
Regarding claims 8 and 19, the combination of Yacoub-Rathod disclose: wherein the tagged user ID comprises a face identifier of a user, and wherein each of the one or more related content items comprises at least the face identifier based on facial recognition (Rathod “Google Image Search TM search and present matched or some level identical images based on user provided image. Present invention enables user to provide or upload or set or apply image or image of part of or particular object, item, face of people, brand, logo, thing, product or object model and/or provide textual description, keywords, tags, metadata, structured fields and associate values, templates, samples & requirement specification and/or provide one or more conditions including similar, exact match, partially match” [0010]; “User can provide locations 1004, 1010 & 1011 with intention to match provided location(s) with content associated with visual media items. User can provide object keywords or keywords including all these words/tags 1001 or 1006, this exact word or tag or phrase 1002 or 1007, any of these words 1003 or 1008, none of these words 1005 or 1009, Categories, Hashtags & Tags 1010 or 1013 recognized via optical character recognition (OCR), wherein said provided keywords and associated conditions or type matched with recognized objects inside pre-stored visual media items including photos and videos related or associated or identified or keywords. User is enabled to search, select and provide one or more types or categories or user name(s) or contact(s) or group(s) or unique identities or name of sources of visual media items 1026” [0327] [Examiner notes that this text specifically refers to the face of people as a possible object for recognition, which aligns with the concept of deriving a face identifier using facial recognition. The mention of keywords, tags, and metadata ties directly to the phrase tagged user ID, which could include face-based metadata (tagging them with metadata to associate with other content). The text allows users to search for images that match an uploaded face or object based on exact or partial recognition, analogous to using facial recognition to identify related media items. The second excerpt is complementary as it describes recognizing objects in stored media, which can include faces via optical character recognition (OCR) or object recognition. The face identifier concept in the original claim falls under this broader recognition framework. Although location matching is an added feature, it adds to the original claim by expanding on how identified objects (e.g. faces) can be linked to content based on metadata like location tags. It also add to the tagging concept as the use of tags and keywords to match visual media aligns with the tagged user ID concept. A face identifier can be tagged as metadata and matched with related media]).
The reasons of obviousness have been noted in the rejection of claims 6 and 17 above and applicable herein.
Regarding claims 11 and 22, the combination of Yacoub-Rathod disclose: wherein the user interface comprises a messaging interface (Rathod “Users of client devices often use one or more messaging applications to send messages to other users associated with client devices. The messages include a variety of content ranging from text to images to videos” [0017]).
Thus, it 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, to combine the method of Yacoub with the added structure of Rathod for the advantage being able to contact other users associated with client devices [Rathod 0017].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Vanasco et al. (US 2010/0274815 A1) teaches a networking database containing a plurality of records for different identities in which identities are connected to one another by defined or interpreted Inter-Personal and Intra-Personal relationships. Individuals using the system may define, group and categorize specific identities and relationships; the system may also define, categorize and group both identities and relationships belonging to individuals registered with the system and unregistered users through computational analysis. Identities and relationships may be discovered by the system via an opt-in user-provided mechanism, via a third-party providing information, or through the system's own discovery and Identity and Relationship data can then be used to customize content.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARON MATTHEWOS WORKU whose telephone number is (703)756-1761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30am - 6:30pm.
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, Linglan Edwards can be reached on 571-270-5440. 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.
/SARON MATTHEWOS WORKU/Examiner, Art Unit 2408
/LINGLAN EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2408