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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the non-final office action dated 04/25/2025, applicant has amended claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 19 and 20. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 as best understood in view of the 112 second rejections, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webster et al (U.S. Pub No. 20070136286, hereinafter Webster) in view of Gungor et al (U.S. Pub No. 20180218422, hereinafter Gungor).
Regarding claim 1, Webster teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium (See Webster Fig 11, memory 1106) comprising instructions (See Webster ¶ [0053] lines 13-16, executable instructions) that, when executed by one or more hardware processors (See Webster Fig 11, processor 1105), cause the processors to perform operations comprising: displaying a list comprising a set of media samples (See Webster Fig 8A-E & ¶ [0110] lines 1-9, list of items 802 can be any collection including various media); concurrently with displaying the list comprising the set of media samples, displaying a first set of filters in a first order (See Webster Fig 8A-E, grouping menu 815), wherein the first set of filters comprises a first filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, menu items 816 Title), a second filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, menu items 816 Genre), and a third filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, menu items 816 Year); responsive to receiving user input selecting the first filter from the first set of filters (See Webster Fig 8A-E, selected menu item 817): updating the list based on the selection of the first filter to generate an updated list (See Webster Fig 8A-E, display 801 updates based on selected filters); displaying the updated list (See Webster Fig 8A-E, display 801); determining, based on the selection of the first filter, a second order of a second set of filters (Examiner is interpreting “a second set of filters” to mean the first set of filters with a selected filter removed) that comprise the second filter and the third filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, after selecting a filter it becomes highlighted and the other filters remain visible in grouping menu 815); and concurrently with displaying the updated list, displaying the second set of filters in the second order (See Webster Fig 8A-E, the updated list on display 801 and sorted by filters 815 shown concurrently).
Webster does not explicitly teach a reordering of the unselected filters.
Gungor teaches a reordering of the unselected filters (See Gungor Fig 4 & ¶ [0079], method 400 block 410 applies re-ranking rules to reorder filters in the second set of filters).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the filter organization methods taught by Gungor with the computer readable medium taught by Webster. Doing so provides an adaptive user experience that allows for a more intuitive search.
Regarding claim 2, Webster in view of Gungor teaches the medium of Claim 1, wherein updating the list based on the first filter comprises filtering the list to (a) include a first subset of media samples, of the set of media samples, that are associated with a tag corresponding to the first filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, grouping level 818 changes based on the sorted by filter 815 selection and categorizes the displayed media into subsets or groups based on the displayed tags) and (b) exclude a second subset of media samples, of the set of media samples, that are not associated with the tag corresponding to the first filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, by only selecting one tag in grouping level 818, all other subsets or groups would be excluded).
Regarding claim 3, Webster in view of Gungor teaches the medium of Claim 1, wherein updating the list based on the first filter comprises resorting the list to increase a ranking of a first media sample to be higher than a ranking of a second media sample based on the first media sample comprising characteristics that are closer to the first filter than characteristics comprised in the second media sample (See Webster ¶ [0061-0062], collection can be sorted or re-sorted based on data including name, classification, length, metadata, or other aspects).
Regarding claim 4, Webster in view of Gungor teaches the medium of Claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise determining the second set of filters at least by removing the first filter from the first set of filters (See Webster Fig 8A-E, once a filter is selected it becomes highlighted as shown in selected menu item 817. This removes the selected filter from being selected again which leaves the second set of filters comprising the unselected filters).
Regarding claim 5, Webster in view of Gungor teaches the medium of claim 1.
Webster does not explicitly teach reordering the filters based on the number of results they each produce.
Gungor teaches reordering filters based on the number of results they each produce (See Gungor ¶ [0079], re-ranking rules for filter order can be set to change the order in which filters are listed based on specified criteria such as numerical order, filter type, or brand).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the filter display criteria taught by Gungor with the computer readable medium taught by Webster. As stated by Gungor ¶ [0002] lines 9-14 by providing relevant filters to a consumer they can find what they are looking for more easily thus improving the user experience.
Regarding claim 6, Webster in view of Gungor teaches the medium of claim 1.
Webster does not explicitly teach a reordering of the second filter and the third filter based on a user’s historical usage.
Gungor teaches a reordering of the second filter and third filter based on a user’s historical usage (See Gungor Fig 4, re-ranking block 410 can use user engagement statistics from block 403).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the filter organization methods taught by Gungor with the sortable collection browser taught by Webster. Doing so provides an adaptive user experience that allows for a more intuitive search.
Regarding claim 8, Webster teaches a method (See Webster Abstract line 1, method of browsing) comprising: displaying a list comprising a set of media samples (See Webster Fig 8A-E & ¶ [0110] lines 1-9, list of items 802 can be any collection including various media); concurrently with displaying the list comprising the set of media samples, displaying a first set of filters in a first order (See Webster Fig 8A-E, grouping menu 815), wherein the first set of filters comprises a first filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, menu items 816 Title), a second filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, menu items 816 Genre), and a third filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, menu items 816 Year); responsive to receiving user input selecting a first filter from the first set of filters (See Webster Fig 8A-E, selected menu item 817): updating the list based on the selection of the first filter to generate an updated list (See Webster Fig 8A-E, display 801 updates based on selected filters); displaying the updated list (See Webster Fig 8A-E, display 801); determining, based on the selection of the first filter, a second order of a second set of filters (Examiner is interpreting “a second set of filters” to mean the first set of filters with a selected filter removed) that comprise the second filter and the third filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, after selecting a filter it becomes highlighted and the other filters remain visible in grouping menu 815); concurrently with displaying the updated list, displaying the second set of filters in the second order (See Webster Fig 8A-E, the updated list on display 801 and sorted by filters 815 shown concurrently); and wherein the method is performed by at least one device including a hardware processor (See Webster Fig 11, processor 1105).
Webster does not explicitly teach a reordering of the unselected filters.
Gungor teaches a reordering of the unselected filters (See Gungor Fig 4 & ¶ [0079], method 400 block 410 applies re-ranking rules to reorder filters in the second set of filters).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the filter organization methods taught by Gungor with the method taught by Webster. Doing so provides an adaptive user experience that allows for a more intuitive search.
Regarding claim 9, Webster in view of Gungor teaches the method of Claim 8, wherein updating the list based on the first filter comprises filtering the list to (a) include a first subset of media samples, of the set of media samples, that are associated with a tag corresponding to the first filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, grouping level 818 changes based on the sorted by filter 815 selection and categorizes the displayed media into subsets or groups based on the displayed tags) and (b) exclude a second subset of media samples, of the set of media samples, that are not associated with the tag corresponding to the first filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, by only selecting one tag in grouping level 818, all other subsets or groups would be excluded).
Regarding claim 10, Webster in view of Gungor teaches the method of Claim 8, wherein updating the list based on the first filter comprises resorting the list to increase a ranking of a first media sample to be higher than a ranking of a second media sample based on the first media sample comprising characteristics that are closer to the first filter than characteristics comprised in the second media sample (See Webster ¶ [0061-0062], collection can be sorted or re-sorted based on data including name, classification, length, metadata, or other aspects).
Regarding claim 11, Webster in view of Gungor teaches the method of Claim 8, further comprises determining the second set of filters at least by removing the first filter from the first set of filters (See Webster Fig 8A-E, once a filter is selected it becomes highlighted as shown in selected menu item 817. This removes the selected filter from being selected again which leaves the second set of filters comprising the unselected filters).
Regarding claim 12, Webster in view of Gungor teaches the method of claim 8.
Webster does not explicitly teach reordering the filters based on the number of results they each produce.
Gungor teaches reordering filters based on the number of results they each produce (See Gungor ¶ [0079], re-ranking rules for filter order can be set to change the order in which filters are listed based on specified criteria such as numerical order, filter type, or brand).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the filter display criteria taught by Gungor with the method taught by Webster. As stated by Gungor ¶ [0002] lines 9-14 by providing relevant filters to a consumer they can find what they are looking for more easily thus improving the user experience.
Regarding claim 13, Webster in view of Gungor teaches the method of claim 8.
Webster does not explicitly teach a reordering of the second filter and third filter based on a user’s historical usage.
Gungor teaches a reordering of the second filter and third filter based on a user’s historical usage (See Gungor Fig 4, re-ranking block 410 can use user engagement statistics from block 403).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the filter organization methods taught by Gungor with the sortable collection browser taught by Webster. Doing so provides an adaptive user experience that allows for a more intuitive search.
Regarding claim 15, Webster teaches A system (See Webster Fig 11, system 1100) comprising: one or more hardware processors (See Webster Fig 11, processor 1105); and the system being configured to perform operations comprising: displaying a list comprising a set of media samples (See Webster Fig 8A-E & ¶ [0110] lines 1-9, list of items 802 can be any collection including various media); concurrently with displaying the list comprising the set of media samples, displaying a first set of filters in a first order(See Webster Fig 8A-E, grouping menu 815), wherein the first set of filters comprises a first filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, menu items 816 Title), a second filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, menu items 816 Genre), and a third filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, menu items 816 Year); responsive to receiving user input selecting a first filter from the first set of filters (See Webster Fig 8A-E, selected menu item 817): updating the list based on the selection of the first filter to generate an updated list (See Webster Fig 8A-E, display 801 updates based on selected filters); displaying the updated list (See Webster Fig 8A-E, display 801); determining, based on the selection of the first filter, a second order of a second set of filters (Examiner is interpreting “a second set of filters” to mean the first set of filters with a selected filter removed) that comprise the second filter and the third filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, after selecting a filter it becomes highlighted and the other filters remain visible in grouping menu 815); concurrently with displaying the updated list, displaying the second set of filters in the second order (See Webster Fig 8A-E, the updated list on display 801 and sorted by filters 815 shown concurrently).
Webster does not explicitly teach a reordering of the unselected filters.
Gungor teaches a reordering of the unselected filters (See Gungor Fig 4 & ¶ [0079], method 400 block 410 applies re-ranking rules to reorder filters in the second set of filters).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the filter organization methods taught by Gungor with the system taught by Webster. Doing so provides an adaptive user experience that allows for a more intuitive search.
Regarding claim 16, Webster in view of Gungor teaches the system of Claim 15, wherein updating the list based on the first filter comprises filtering the list to (a) include a first subset of media samples, of the set of media samples, that are associated with a tag corresponding to the first filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, grouping level 818 changes based on the sorted by filter 815 selection and categorizes the displayed media into subsets or groups based on the displayed tags) and (b) exclude a second subset of media samples, of the set of media samples, that are not associated with the tag corresponding to the first filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, by only selecting one tag in grouping level 818, all other subsets or groups would be excluded).
Regarding claim 17, Webster in view of Gungor teaches the system of Claim 15, wherein updating the list based on the first filter comprises resorting the list to increase a ranking of a first media sample to be higher than a ranking of a second media sample based on the first media sample comprising characteristics that are closer to the first filter than characteristics comprised in the second media sample (See Webster ¶ [0061-0062], collection can be sorted or re-sorted based on data including name, classification, length, metadata, or other aspects).
Regarding claim 18, Webster in view of Gungor teaches the system of Claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise determining the second set of filters at least by removing the first filter from the first set of filters (See Webster Fig 8A-E, once a filter is selected it becomes highlighted as shown in selected menu item 817. This removes the selected filter from being selected again which leaves the second set of filters comprising the unselected filters).
Regarding claim 19, Webster teaches the system of claim 15.
Webster does not explicitly teach reordering the filters based on the number of results they each produce.
Gungor teaches reordering filters based on the number of results they each produce (See Gungor ¶ [0079], re-ranking rules for filter order can be set to change the order in which filters are listed based on specified criteria such as numerical order, filter type, or brand).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the filter display criteria taught by Gungor with the system taught by Webster. As stated by Gungor ¶ [0002] lines 9-14 by providing relevant filters to a consumer they can find what they are looking for more easily thus improving the user experience.
Regarding claim 20, Webster in view of Gungor teaches the system of claim 15.
Webster does not explicitly teach a reordering of the second filter and third filter based on a user’s historical usage.
Gungor teaches a reordering of the second filter and third filter based on a user’s historical usage (See Gungor Fig 4, re-ranking block 410 can use user engagement statistics from block 403).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the filter organization methods taught by Gungor with the sortable collection browser taught by Webster. Doing so provides an adaptive user experience that allows for a more intuitive search.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webster et al (U.S. Pub No. 20070136286, hereinafter Webster) in view of Gungor et al (U.S. Pub No. 20180218422, hereinafter Gungor) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Hierons et al (U.S. Pub No. 20130339853, hereinafter Hierons).
Regarding claim 7, Webster in view of Gungor teaches the medium of claim 1, wherein receiving the user input selecting the first filter comprises receiving user input selecting one or more of a plurality of sub-filters associated with the first filter (See Webster Fig 8A-E, grouping level 818 comprising sub-filters that the user can select 820).
Webster in view of Gungor does not explicitly teach displaying a number associated with the number of sub-filters.
Hierons teaches displaying a number associated with the number of sub-filters (See Hierons Fig 12 & ¶ [0085] lines 5-10, music genre filter tool button having a number indicator for additional filters).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the number indicator taught by Hierons with the medium taught by Webster in view of Gungor. Doing so declutters screen space while still showing the user that additional filters are available.
Regarding claim 14, Webster in view of Gungor teaches the method of claim 8.
Webster in view of Gungor does not explicitly teach displaying a number associated with the number of sub-filters.
Hierons teaches displaying a number associated with the number of sub-filters (See Hierons Fig 12 & ¶ [0085] lines 5-10, music genre filter tool button having a number indicator for additional filters).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the number indicator taught by Hierons with the method taught by Webster in view of Gungor. Doing so declutters screen space while still showing the user that additional filters are available.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 3 lines 21-22, filed 07/24/2025, with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 04/25/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 3 lines 18-19, filed 07/24/2025, with respect to claims 6, 13 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 04/25/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 2 lines 7-11, filed 07/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13 and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the reordering system taught by Gungor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER LIEBGOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1818. The examiner can normally be reached TBD.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571)272-7547. 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.
/T.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2694 /Daniel R Sellers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694