DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This is nonfinal rejection in response to amendments/remarks filed on 02/27/2026. Claims 1, 13, 18, 20, and 22 have been amended. Claim 4 has been cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-8, and 11-22 remain pending and are examined herein.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/27/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to Chinese application CN 2022100079592, filed on 04 Jan 2022. The certificate of availability indicates that the earliest date of availability is 29 Oct 2022, making 29 Oct 2022 the earliest priority date of the present application.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-8, 11-17, 21, 22: A multimedia processing method, performed by a computer device comprising at least one processor, the method comprising:
Claims 18-19: A multimedia processing apparatus, comprising: at least one processor configured to implement one or more instructions; and at least one computer storage medium having stored thereon one or more instructions, and the one or more instructions being loaded and executed by the at least one processor to implement:
Claim 20: A non-transitory computer storage medium having stored thereon a computer program instruction, and the computer program instruction, when being executed by at least one processor, causing the at least one processor to perform:
The claims recite at least one of: a process, a machine, or a manufacture, therefore the claims respectively recite at least potentially eligible subject matter category and are to be further analyzed under step 2 of the 2 step analysis.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a Judicial Exception(A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claims 1, 18 and 20 are marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows:
Claim 1 Preamble: A multimedia processing method, performed by a computer device comprising at least one processor, the method comprising:
Claim 18 Preamble: A multimedia processing apparatus, comprising: at least one processor configured to implement one or more instructions; and at least one computer storage medium having stored thereon one or more instructions, and the one or more instructions being loaded and executed by the at least one processor to implement:
Claim 20 Preamble: A non-transitory computer storage medium having stored thereon a computer program instruction, and the computer program instruction, when being executed by at least one processor, causing the at least one processor to perform:
Claim 1 Body (also representative of claims 18 and 20): displaying, on a display screen coupled to the processor, a social media page of a social application executed by the processor, the social media page comprising a multimedia displayed in a first form, and the first form indicating that the multimedia is in an unrecognized state;
in response to detecting that the multimedia in the first form is triggered:
generating, by the processor, a multimedia browsing window;
performing a search based on the multimedia to determine a search result, the search result being an associated page of the multimedia, comprising:
sending, to a server by the at least one processor of the computer device, an associated page search request for searching the associated page, the associated page search request carrying the multimedia; and
acquiring, by the at least one processor, access link information of the associated page returned by the server, the associated page including one or more pages having page contents matched with a content of the multimedia;
displaying, on the display screen, the multimedia in a second form in the multimedia browsing window, the second form indicating that the associated page of the multimedia has been searched, the multimedia in the second form comprising an interaction label indicating a presence of a social friend associated with the multimedia; and
displaying the associated page showing the search result in response to that the multimedia in the second form is triggered; and
in response to detecting that the multimedia browsing window is closed or the associated page is closed, updating and displaying, on the display screen, the multimedia in the social media page from the first form to the second form, wherein the interaction label is not presented with the multimedia in the first form in the social media page, but added to the social media page when presenting the multimedia in the second form, and the interaction label is configured to present, upon being triggered, the search result based on the multimedia,
wherein displaying the multimedia in the second form comprises:
generating, by the at least one processor, the interaction label that includes at least one of a prompt text, a prompt animation, and identity information of a social friend; and
displaying, by the at least one processor on the display screen, the interaction label at a position corresponding to the multimedia in the second form, comprising one of: displaying the interaction label on a position within the multimedia; displaying the interaction label in a suspended way in the multimedia; displaying the interaction label around the multimedia; and hiding the interaction label by default and only displaying the interaction label in response to that a staying signal exists in a region of the multimedia.
When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claims 1, 18, and 20 are directed to the abstract idea category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” More specifically, the present invention falls under the sub-grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The claims describe the display of various social media pages in response to basic inputs, which is merely a way to manage interactions between individuals. This is supported in the specification [0061], which indicates that the claimed alleged invention has been made “so that the user can acquire more relevant information of the multimedia from the associated pages, and the efficiency and convenience of information acquisition in social scenarios can be effectively improved.” Improving the efficiency and convenience of social interactions is a recitation of an abstract idea, especially with the representative claims broadly recited in its current form. Improvements to the abstract idea are still considered an abstract idea.
Furthermore, even when considering the previously amended limitations, the claims are recited broadly such that they are no more than rules or instructions to “manage personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” The steps relating to the users’ inputs on the multimedia are recited with such generality that they can be interpreted to be instructions to a user. For example, “performing a search based on the multimedia to determine a search result...In response to detecting that the multimedia in the first form is triggered” is no more than a set of instructions to begin a search but does not recite how the search is performed. Furthermore, even when considering the presently amended limitations, particularly sending, an associated page search request for searching the associated page, the associated search request carrying the multimedia; and acquiring access link information of the associated page returned by the server, these further limitations still recite “certain methods of organizing human activity, because it is merely reciting conveying interactions in the form of a search request, and receiving access link information. Nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the limitations to teach exactly how the search is performed once it is sent to the server, as it merely sends the associated page search request and returns the access link information from the server. Since the limitations merely claim interactions in the form of sending and receiving data, allowing the search itself to be performed in any manner whatsoever by a “server”, it is a mere data collection step in order to perform the abstract idea.
Similarly, the previously amended limitation of “the multimedia in the second form comprising an interaction label indicating a presence of a social friend associated with the multimedia;” is reciting broadly such that it does not limit how the interaction label is being generated, it is merely conveying social activities to an individual and facilitating social interactions between people. Finally, the amendment of “in response to detecting that the multimedia browsing window is closed or the associated page is closed, updating and displaying, on the display screen, the multimedia in the social media page from the first form to the second form, wherein the interaction label is not presented with the multimedia in the first form in the social media page, but added to the social media page when presenting the multimedia in the second form, and the interaction label is configured to present, upon being triggered, the search result based on the multimedia” merely recites a series of steps of displaying the results of the preceding interactions. However, because the interactions are abstract idea steps, particularly the search and the interaction label, then the steps above are no more than a display of the abstract idea. This is more of the same abstract idea because the series of triggers and displays are no more than simple steps that dictate the timing in which certain data is to be displayed, without adding any improved functionality to the displays. Even when considering the newly amended limitations, the interaction labels are still no more than “managing interactions between people,” because prompt text, prompt animation, and identity information of a social friend all fall within the scope of “social activities, relationships between people, or interactions.” Secondly, the displaying step, in which the interaction label can be displayed at a position in at least one of the following ways: “a position within the multimedia,” “in a suspended way in the multimedia,” “around the multimedia,” and “hiding the interaction label by default and only displaying the interaction label in response to that a staying signal exists in a region of the multimedia” these are all merely manners of displaying the interaction in such a broad manner that is merely an output of data, wherein the data collection, data analysis, and data display steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they are no more than “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people.” Since the claim only requires one of the options in the list, and the options cover any viable possibility of displaying the interaction(where it is on the multimedia, above, around, or via press and hold), it is no more than a display of the interactions to another individual.
Therefore, when considering all the steps the bolded claims, it is clear that an abstract idea under “managing personal behavior, or interactions or relationships between individuals” is recited. The examiner notes that even though the claims limit the interactions to be performed through a computer device, this does not preclude the claims from reciting an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states, “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.”
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and fail at step 2a Prong 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claims 1, 18, and 20 recite the following additional elements:
- a computer device comprising at least one processor, in claim 1
- apparatus, comprising: at least one processor configured to implement one or more instructions; and at least one computer storage medium having stored thereon one or more instructions, and the one or more instructions being loaded and executed by the at least one processor in claim 18
- A non-transitory computer storage medium having stored thereon a computer program instruction, and the computer program instruction in claim 20
-a server by the at least one processor of the computer device in claims 1, 18, 20
-a display screen coupled to the processor in claims 1, 18, 20
The additional elements listed above, when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on generic computing components as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). In this case, the abstract idea of “displaying a social media page in an unrecognized state, performing a search on a multimedia, displaying a recognized state in response to a trigger, displaying an associated page, displaying an interaction label, and displaying the results of a search” are instructed to being performed on computer devices, processors, storage mediums, servers and display screens. It is clear in at least paragraph [0063] of the specification that these devices can be any generic computing device such as a smartphone or tablet. Furthermore, using servers to send requests and acquire information is no more than using a device in its ordinary capacity to perform an economic task. Similarly, using a display screen to display the interaction label, even when considering the limitations of how its displayed relative to the multimedia, is still a generic use of the device in its ordinary capacity to perform an economic task, especially because the manner in which the interaction labels are to be displayed is broad enough to encapsulate a plurality of ways to display interaction relative to the multimedia. Furthermore, there is no improvement to the technology or technological field purported in the specification or recited within the scope of the actual claim language (See MPEP 2106.05(a) for Improvements to Technology or Technical Field). The features claimed are broad input and output steps without any specific structure, therefore, the claims 1, 18, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1, 18, and 20 recite the following additional elements:
- a computer device comprising at least one processor, in claim 1
- apparatus, comprising: at least one processor configured to implement one or more instructions; and at least one computer storage medium having stored thereon one or more instructions, and the one or more instructions being loaded and executed by the at least one processor in claim 18
- A non-transitory computer storage medium having stored thereon a computer program instruction, and the computer program instruction in claim 20
-a server by the at least one processor of the computer device in claims 1, 18, 20
-a display screen coupled to the processor in claims 1, 18, 20
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer devices, processors, storage mediums, servers and display screens to perform “displaying a social media page in an unrecognized state, performing a search on a multimedia, displaying a recognized state in response to a trigger, displaying an associated page, displaying an interaction label, and displaying the results of a search” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 18, and 20 are not patent eligible because the claims are directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, 11-17, 19, 21, and 22 are also given the full two part analysis both individually and in combination with the claims they depend on herein:
Claims 2 and 19 further limit the abstract idea by further restricting what is included in “social media page” and “associated page” to include a service page in a social application, mini application page, webpage. This is more of the same abstract idea because even when substituting these further limitations in for “social media” or “associated page” it still recites an abstract idea under “managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals.” Furthermore, the additional element “application” and “webpage” are general links to a particular technological environment or field of use as outlined in MPEP 2105.06(h). Implementing the abstract idea on these particular environments does not provide a meaningful limitation, and is no more than generally linking the abstract idea to the field of “applications” and “webpages.” Therefore the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claims 3 and 5 further limits the abstract idea by defining that denotes “triggers” to include “clicking, pressing, operation, or a suspending gesture.” This is more of the same abstract idea because it merely denotes the types of triggers. Even when considering these triggers to be additional elements, they are a general link to a technology or field use, such as “interfaces” for the sake of argument, these interactions are generic interface features and do not denote improvements to the field of user interface technology. Therefore the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claims 6, 8, and 15-17 further define the abstract idea by adding user interactions to displaying various forms, but are still merely a display of data, wherein the preceding data analysis steps are recited at such a high level of generality such that they are no more than an abstract idea. The claims are still reciting “managing personal behavior or interactions between people,” because they merely recite interactions between a person and a computer, but the activity itself still falls within “certain methods of organizing human activity.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.” Furthermore, the additional elements of adding trigger controls, trigger operations, label controls, button controls, are merely “apply it” level elements because they are using devices in their ordinary capacity to carry out economic or other tasks (using an interface device to receive inputs). Even when considered in combination, the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more.
Claims 11, 21, and 22 merely further limit the type of social media pages being displayed or the identity information of a user to be a nickname, logo or portrait. This is more of the same abstract idea of “managing personal behavior or interactions” because the activities still fall within “social activities.” Furthermore, the claims do recite any new additional elements, and the existing additional elements are still “apply it” therefore, the additional elements, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more. Claim 12 further defines the abstract idea by adding the step of outputting a search authorization prompt to seek permission to search the multimedia. When analyzed individually this is still a “certain method of organizing human activity” as it is both a facilitating of personal interactions, but it is also the compliance to a legal obligation of asking for consent to search a photo. When analyzed in combination with the claims they depend on it is more of the same abstract idea. There are no further additional elements to consider therefore, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claim 13 still recites more of the same abstract idea, as it still pertains to social activities, and interactions between a user and a computer that are no more than “certain methods of organizing human activity.” The additional elements of “a mini application page...running as a sub-application...that does not need to be downloaded or installed on the computer,” when interpreted in the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, is still an “apply it” level element due to the fact that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished). MPEP 2106.05(f), “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".” Furthermore, the examiner notes that, when viewing the combination of additional elements and viewing claim 13 as a whole, including all of the limitations of claim 1, the claims fail to reflect the elements that lead to the technical improvement purported in the specification, particularly but not limited to the steps of [00116], considered in combination with each other. Since the claims merely claim the idea of the mini application running as a sub-application without having to be downloaded, they fail to claim the technical features or mechanisms that lead to this improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification)... An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.” Therefore, for the reasons above, claim 13 still fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 14 further defines the abstract idea by adding the additional step of “acquiring access link information…(by) performing multi-dimensional recognition processing on the multimedia.” Acquiring access link information is more of the same abstract idea since it is just the transfer of data in a social environment. However, multi-dimensional recognition processing is an additional element that is a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use. Generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field as broadly as it has been claimed, does not meaningfully limit the use of the abstract idea on the technical field. It also does not provide an improvement to the technical field of “multi-dimensional recognition processing.” Please see MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Subject Matter Distinguished Over Prior Art
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 11-22 recite subject matter free of prior art and would be considered allowable if the claims overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. The reasons for indicating subject matter distinguished over prior art are as follows.
Lu (same as the primary reference), Dua et al. (US 20170185670 A1) hereinafter Dua, and Anvaripour et al. (US 20210303860 A1) hereinafter Anvaripour fail to teach or suggest:
“in response to detecting that the multimedia browsing window is closed or the associated page is closed, updating and displaying, on the display screen, the multimedia in the social media page from the first form to the second form, wherein the interaction label is not presented with the multimedia in the first form in the social media page, but added to the social media page when presenting the multimedia in the second form.”
The limitation above recites a very specific interaction, which determines when an interaction label would be presented in response to the multimedia browsing window or associated page being closed. In the prior art references, the display of the interaction label is not tied to/limited by the multimedia/associated page being closed. In other words, the closing of a multimedia browsing window or associated page is not the trigger for switching the multimedia from a first mode not having an interaction label to a second mode with an interaction label. For example, the closest prior art yielded in the most recent search is Patel et al. (US 10474321 B2), which discloses modules within a social messaging system which enable the modification of an image to include linked information and annotation data. Patel teaches:
-image identification features [Patel [Col. 9 Lines 16-19]],
-reverse image search [Patel [Col. 9 Lines 63-66]],
-multimedia browsing window/associated page [Patel [Col. 3 Line 59 – Col. 4 Line 4],
-interaction label including prompt text, prompt animation, over the image[Patel [Col. 18 Line 51-59] “annotations” ,
-second mode [Patel [Col. 15 Lines 28-33] 340 Linked Image.
However, in Patel, the updating and displaying the multimedia from a first form to a second form is triggered in various ways, depending on the embodiment, such as:
- automatically when the image identification has completed the search and transmits the results(Patel [Col. 9 Line 66- Col. 10 Line 26]), or
- upon user selection of the first image(Patel [Col. 18 Lines 51-54])
In none of the embodiments of Patel do the claims teach or suggest that the conversion from first to second form only occurs “in response to detecting that the multimedia browsing window is closed or the associated page is closed.” Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to modify the prior art, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to substitute “closing the window/page” as the triggering action that transforms the multimedia from the first mode to the second mode. None of the prior art of record teaches or even suggests using exiting the window/page as a trigger, and there is no clear benefit to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the modification. Updating the multimedia from the first form to the second form automatically, or when the search results link has been added seems to be the most efficient manner to perform the transformation. Therefore, none of the rationales (A-G) that may support of a conclusion of obviousness in MPEP 2141(III), are applicable to the prior art of record.
Therefore, even a hypothetical combination of the four best prior art sources would not yield a combination that teaches each and every single claim limitation. Even Rodriguez (US 20180367484 A1) fails to remedy this deficiency. The best foreign prior art, Hong et al. (KR 102623300 B1), which teaches an item contextual information search using a messenger app, also fails to remedy this deficiency. Therefore, even after an updated prior art search, the prior art of record fails to teach or even suggest every limitation in the claims. Therefore, claims 1, 18, and 20 recite subject matter free of prior art, and dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, 11-17, 19, 21, and 22 are also free of prior art by virtue of their dependency on claims 1, 18, and 20 respectively.
The examiner notes that the claims remain rejected over 35 U.S.C. 101 because MPEP 2106.05 states, “Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.” Therefore, while the feature of updating and displaying the multimedia from a first form to a second form in response to detecting that a multimedia browsing window is closed is not anticipated or rendered obvious in the prior art of the record, it still remains ineligible over 35 U.S.C. 101 because that particular limitation is still a recitation of the abstract idea (in the scope of plain claim language).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments over rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant argues that representative claim 1 does not recite a method of organizing human activity because the applicant disagrees that the limitations regarding performing a search based on the multimedia is broad enough to be merely instructions to an individual to manage their personal behavior. However, even when considering the further limitations, particularly sending, an associated page search request for searching the associated page, the associated search request carrying the multimedia; and acquiring access link information of the associated page returned by the server, these further limitations now recite “certain methods of organizing human activity, because it is merely reciting conveying interactions in the form of a search request, and receiving access link information. Therefore, it merely claims the interactions between sending and receiving the search request and results of the search request, but not how the search is performed, therefore, it is a mere data collection step in order to perform the abstract idea. Furthermore, in response to the amendments, in which the applicant alleges cannot be performed manually, the updated rejection further clarifies that even interactions between a user and a computer can recite “certain methods of organizing human activity,” therefore, whether the claims can be performed manually or not is a separate discussion from whether the activity in the claims falls within at least one of the enumerated subgroupings. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Furthermore, the applicant argues that the claimed invention is directed, “despite having a trigger at the social media page, to a multimedia search and display activity.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees, because it is clear that there at least recitations of concepts regarding social activities and other activities that fall within “certain methods of organizing human activity.” The applicant further argues that “a search activity is clearly not relationships or interactions between people.” However, this argument is not persuasive because the addition of a search step (within the context of a social interaction), does not remove the limitations completely out of the abstract idea category. Furthermore, it is clear that the claims are not directed to an improvement to search technology or an improvement to user interface display technology because it does not describe how the search is performed other than sending a search request to a server and receiving the access link. Furthermore, the displaying steps are recited at such a high level of generality that they are merely displaying the results of the abstract idea (displaying an interaction to an individual is managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships). Therefore, none of the applicant’s arguments over Step 2A Prong 1 are persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments over step 2a prong 2 of the analysis, in which the applicant asserts that the claim is integrated into a practical application because they are directed to improvements in the technical field of database tuning, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant cites to [0003] of the specification, “how to improve the efficiency of information acquisition in social scenarios,” which is more in line with an improvement to the abstract idea (social activities). MPEP 2106.05(a) specifies that, “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Therefore, even if efficiency of information acquisition is improved by the claims, this is more in line with an improvement to the abstract idea because it improves information acquisition in social activities. Therefore, the applicant’s alleged improvements to “database tuning,” and “performance degradation,” are not reflected in the scope of the claim and are therefore not persuasive. Furthermore, the applicant cites to paragraph [0061], “In order to satisfy the searching requirement and rapidly and conveniently acquire more information in social scenarios...” however, these improvements are still in line with the abstract idea of improving information in social settings. However, there is no improvement to search technology itself reflected in the scope of the claims. Upon searching the specification for a technical explanation that would provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement, the examiner finds that the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), therefore the claim does not improve technology. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology... The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification).” Since the scope of the claims merely involves improvements to the abstract idea of “managing personal behavior,” and only invokes a generic search step (mere data collection) and displaying steps without providing improvements to search technology or user interface displays, there is no qualifying improvement to computer functionality, technology or a technical field. Thus, the pending claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. No arguments have been provided by the applicant regarding the eligibility of dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, 11-17, 19, 21, and 22, however, the applicant may find the reasons for rejection in the updated rejection statement above. The examiner notes that an amendment to claim 1 including more details from claim 13 and [0116], may provide a combination of elements that the examiner would further consider under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, as it stands, claims 1-3, 5-8, and 11-22 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Furthermore, the claims remain distinguished over the prior art even after updated search and consideration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- Patel et al. (US 10474321 B2), which discloses modules within a social messaging system which enable the modification of an image to include linked information and annotation data
-Yang et al. (US 20210232853 A1) discloses an in-app object recognition feature that allows users to perform object recognition on an image sent in a messaging application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/NICO L PADUA/ Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/SANGEETA BAHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights