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 a final rejection in response to amendments and remarks filed on 04/23/2026. Claims 1, 7, and 16-19 are amended. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 16-19 are currently pending and are examined herein.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of CN application number #2022105807115 with a filing date of May 25, 2022, and public availability date of Aug 08 2022 has been filed in the present application. Therefore, the claims have the earliest effective filing date of Aug 08 2022.
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, 3-8, 10-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1, 3-6: A method of presenting a post,
Claim 7, 8, 10-12: A method of reposting a post,
Claim 16 and 17: An electronic device, comprising: at least one processing unit; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions to be executed by the at least one processing unit, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing unit, causing the electronic device to perform acts...
Claim 18 and 19: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon, the program, when executed by a processor, performing acts...
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, 7, 16, 17, and 18 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 – A method of presenting a post, comprising:
receiving, at a terminal device and from a user viewing the post, a request for presenting a comment area for the post in a user interface of a client application executed on the terminal device, the user interface being configured to present the post; and
in response to the request, presenting, within the comment area in the user interface, a first comment subarea dedicated to displaying at least one repost comment related to reposting of the post and a second comment subarea dedicated to displaying regular comments for the post,
wherein the at least one repost comment is displayed in a folded form within the first comment subarea, and replies to the at least one repost comment are displayed in a folded form in association with the at least one repost comment,
wherein a reply unfold control is displayed in association with at least a part of the at least one repost comment, and is triggerable for unfolding a first number of folded replies to a corresponding repost comment in association with the corresponding repost comment within the first comment subarea, and a repost unfold control is displayed within the first comment subarea and is triggerable for unfolding a second number of folded repost comments within the first comment subarea.
Claim 7 – A method of reposting a post, comprising:
in response to the post being reposted by a user, generating, at a terminal device executing a client application, a repost comment related to reposting of the post by the user for presenting in a comment area for the post in a user interface of the client application, the user interface being configured to present the post;
presenting, in the user interface for presenting the post, a first indication that the user reposted the post; and
in response to a first predetermined operation of the user on the first indication, jumping to the comment area to display the repost comment, wherein the comment area comprises a first comment subarea dedicated to displaying at least one repost comment related to reposting of the post and a second comment subarea dedicated to displaying regular comments for the post, the first comment subarea being displayed above the second comment subarea within a single user interface, such that the at least one repost comment in the first comment subarea and the regular comments in the second comment subarea are concurrently presented in the same user interface.
Claim 16 – An electronic device, comprising: at least one processing unit; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions to be executed by the at least one processing unit, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing unit, causing the device to perform acts comprising:
receiving, at the electronic device and from a user viewing the post, a request for presenting a comment area for the post in a user interface of a client application executed on the electronic device, the user interface being configured to present the post; and
wherein the at least one repost comment is displayed in a folded form within the first comment subarea, and replies to the at least one repost comment are displayed in a folded form in association with the at least one repost comment,
wherein a reply unfold control is displayed in association with at least a part of the at least one repost comment, and is triggerable for unfolding a first number of folded replies to a corresponding repost comment within the second comment subarea, and a repost unfold control is displayed within the first comment subarea and is triggerable for unfolding a second number of folded repost comments within the first comment subarea.
Claim 17 - An electronic device, comprising: at least one processing unit; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions to be executed by the at least one processing unit, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing unit, causing the device to perform acts comprising:
in response to the post being reposted by a user, generating, at the electronic device executing a client application, a repost comment related to reposting of the post by the user for presenting in a comment area for the post in a user interface of the client application, the user interface being configured to present the post;
presenting, in the user interface for presenting the post, a first indication that the user reposted the post; and
in response to a first predetermined operation of the user on the first indication, jumping to the comment area to display the repost comment, wherein the comment area comprises a first comment subarea dedicated to displaying at least one repost comment related to reposting of the post and a second comment subarea dedicated to displaying regular comments for the post, the first comment subarea being displayed above the second comment subarea within a single user interface, such that the at least one repost comment in the first comment subarea and the regular comments in the second comment subarea are visible together upon presentation of the comment area without requiring tab switching.
Claim 18 – A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon, the program, when executed by a processor, performing acts comprising:
receiving, at a terminal device and from a user viewing the post, a request for presenting a comment area for the post in a user interface of a client application executed on the terminal device, the user interface being configured to present the post; and
in response to the request, presenting, within the comment area in the user interface, a first comment subarea dedicated to displaying at least one repost comment related to reposting of the post and a second comment subarea dedicated to displaying regular comments for the post,
wherein the at least one repost comment is displayed in a folded form within the first comment subarea, and replies to the at least one repost comment are displayed in a folded form in association with the at least one repost comment,
wherein a reply unfold control is displayed in association with at least a part of the at least one repost comment, and is triggerable for unfolding a first number of folded replies to a corresponding repost comment within the second comment subarea, and a repost unfold control is displayed within the first comment subarea and is triggerable for unfolding a second number of folded repost comments within the first comment subarea.
Claim 19 - A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon, the program, when executed by a processor, performing acts comprising:
in response to the post being reposted by a user, generating, at a terminal device executing a client application, a repost comment related to reposting of the post by the user for presenting in a comment area for the post in a user interface of the client application, the user interface being configured to present the post;
presenting, in the user interface for presenting the post, a first indication that the user reposted the post; and
in response to a first predetermined operation of the user on the first indication, jumping to the comment area to display the repost comment, wherein the comment area comprises a first comment subarea dedicated to displaying at least one repost comment related to reposting of the post and a second comment subarea dedicated to displaying regular comments for the post, the first comment subarea being displayed above the second comment subarea within a single user interface, such that the at least one repost comment in the first comment subarea and the regular comments in the second comment subarea are visible together upon presentation of the comment area without requiring tab switching.
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, 7, and 16-19 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 specification discloses in paragraph [0050], “Thus, if a certain user reposts a certain post, the repost may be seen by associated users when viewing the post, and they may further interact with the repost user. Thus, user interaction may be provided with convenience, and user experience is further improved.” When looking at the claims in view of this excerpt, it is clear that the invention aims to improve a social network feature by improving upon the experience of users who are interacting with each other. Therefore, the invention can be reasonably interpreted to be “managing person interactions between people” through its facilitation of the interactions of repost and regular comments of the users on the platform. Claims 1, 7, and 16-19 recite the abstract idea of “presenting a post, allowing comments on the post, allowing people to repost with a comment, presenting a repost comment subarea, and a regular comment subarea, displaying folded replies and folded repost comments, and jumping to a repost comment”
In regards to the amended limitations, the amendments in bold still recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the following amendments specify that the comment areas are specifically sub-areas, “presenting, within the comment area, a first comment subarea dedicated to displaying at least one repost comment related to reposting of the post and a second comment subarea dedicated to displaying regular comments for the post” (claims 1, 16, 18) and “wherein the comment area comprises a first comment subarea dedicated to displaying at least one repost comment related to reposting of the post and a second comment subarea dedicated to displaying regular comments for the post” (claims 7, 17, 19). Merely specifying that the comment areas are sub-areas is a design choice, and merely limits how other user’s interactions are conveyed to the user. The claims are recited broadly enough such that it doesn’t specify a specific structure or technology, and as a result merely claims the outcome of displaying the two comment subareas. Outputting “user interactions” even when outputted in a particular format, is still part of the abstract of “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships” between people.
Furthermore, in regards to the claim limitations in claims 1, 16, and 18 “wherein a reply unfold control is displayed in association with at least a part of the at least one repost comment, and is triggerable for unfolding a first number of folded replies to a corresponding repost comment in association with the corresponding repost comment within the first comment subarea, and a repost unfold control is displayed within the first comment subarea and is triggerable for unfolding a second number of folded repost comments within the first comment subarea.” When specifically considering the bolded sections first, the bolded section claims the functionality of displaying the first number of folded replies to a repost comment or displaying the second number of folded repost comments. These are merely instructions to present more user interactions to the user, which is still “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people,” which is an abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity.” The additional elements of the reply unfold control, and repost unfold control are analyzed below in Step 2A Prong 2.
Furthermore, in regards to the amended limitations in claims 1, 16, and 18, specifically “wherein the at least one repost comment is displayed in a folded form within the first comment subarea, and replies to the at least one repost comment are displayed in a folded form in association with the at least one repost comment,” the claims still fall under “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people,” because the claims merely describe the format in which user’s interactions are to be displayed. The concept of displaying comments in a “folded form” is abstract because it is merely akin to passing a folded note, and unfolding it, albeit implemented on a computer. Providing a particular format, such as two different subareas, and displaying both in a folded form is still no more than a rule or instruction to manage interactions between people, and thus falls squarely within “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Furthermore, in regards to the amended limitations of claims 7, 17, and 19, specifically, “the first comment subarea being displayed above the second comment subarea within a single user interface, such that the at least one repost comment in the first comment subarea and the regular comments in the second comment subarea are visible together upon presentation of the comment area without requiring tab switching” the claims are still part of the same abstract idea because the concept of displaying a comment subarea above a second comment subarea concurrently is no more than a particular format of displaying interactions between people. While displaying both sub-areas concurrently, inherently results in both sub-areas being visible without tab switching, this is no more than a rule or instruction to manage personal behavior, because it is merely determining the format in which data is displayed. When viewed in its broadest reasonable interpretation, other than being applied to a computer, it is no more than presenting two sub-areas on the same surface. Therefore, the claims still fall squarely within “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Therefore, when considering all of the claims in bold, the claims merely recite “certain methods of organizing human activity” and are to be further analyzed under Step 2A Prong 2 and step 2B.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claims 1, 7, and 16-19 recite the following additional elements:
-client application in claims 1, 7 and 16-19
-terminal device in claims 1, 7, 18, 19
-electronic device in claims 16, 17
- user interface in claims 1, 7 and 16-19
- wherein a reply unfold control is displayed in association with at least a part of the at least one repost comment, in claims 1, 7, and 16-19
- a repost unfold control is displayed within the first comment subarea in claims 1, 7, and 16-19
-at least one processing unit in claims 16 and 17
-at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions to be executed by the at least one processing unit in claims 16 and 17
-A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon in claims 18 and 19
-A processor in claims 18 and 19
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 “presenting a post, allowing comments on the post, allowing people to repost with a comment, displaying folded replies and folded repost comments, and jumping to a repost comment” is performed on generic computing devices such as the user interface, apparatus, modules, processors, memory, terminal devices and non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Furthermore, merely reciting that the abstract idea steps are performed on a “client application,” is also an indication that the abstract idea is to be performed on generic computing devices, because of the broad claim language of “client application” and lack of specific structure.
Because 112(f) is being invoked, the modules are generic computing devices performing the claimed functions. Further evidence that the process can be done on any generic computing device can be found in the specification [0035], “The terminal device 110 may be any type of mobile, fixed or portable terminal, including a mobile phone, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a notebook computer, a netbook computer, a tablet computer, a media computer, a multimedia tablet, a Personal Communication System (PCS) device, a personal navigation device, a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), an audio/video player, a digital camera/video, a positioning device, a television receiver, a radio broadcast receiver, an electronic book device, a gaming device or any other combination of the foregoing, including accessories and peripherals of these devices, or any other combination thereof.” The apparatus and modules are evidently computer devices as seen in specification [0092], “FIG. 9 illustrates a schematic structural block diagram of an apparatus 900 for presenting a post according to some embodiments of the present disclosure. The apparatus 900 may be implemented at or included in the terminal device 110. Various modules/components of the apparatus 900 may be implemented by hardware, software, firmware or any combinations thereof.”
In addition to being an example of “apply it”, the additional element “user interface” is also an example of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, at outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). In this case, the abstract idea is generally linked to the field of user interfaces, specifically referring to the field of graphical user interfaces. The specification paragraph [0056] states, “[0056] It should be understood that the user interface 300 in FIG. 3A and other user interface and display interface in other figures to be described are merely examples, and various designs may exist in practice. For example, various graphical elements and/or controls in the interface can may different arrangements and different visual representations, one or more elements and/or controls may be removed or replaced, and one or more other elements and/or controls may exist. Furthermore, the interface may contain any appropriate text content. Embodiments of the present disclosure are not limited in this regard.” Therefore, it is evident that user interfaces are generally linked to the abstract idea when considering that it merely implements generic user interface technology features with the abstract idea without meaningfully limiting its use on the claims. Furthermore, in regards to specific user interface control features such as the reply unfold control, and repost unfold control, this is still an “apply it” level element additional element because it merely recites that the abstract idea functions of “displaying a first number of folded replies to a corresponding repost comment,” and “displaying a second number of folded repost comments” are performed on a generic computer or a device in its ordinary capacity. As amended, the claims merely require the control to be displayed in association with at least a part of the repost comment, or to be displayed within the first comment subarea, however, this does not provide enough detail to be considered a technical improvement. Merely providing a user input, without specifying a specific type of user interface feature, to perform an abstract idea of displaying user interactions, is merely an example of “apply it.” There are no improvements to user interface technology purported or even reflected within the scope of the claim, therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when considering the claims individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements still do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because merely reciting a terminal device with generic computing components, and the providing generic “controls” to display user interactions is an example of merely applying an abstract idea on a computer as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the claims 1, 7, and 16-19 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?
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 16-19 the additional elements listed in Prong 2 are repeated as follows:
-client application in claims 1, 7 and 16-19
-terminal device in claims 1, 7, 18, 19
-electronic device in claims 16, 17
- user interface in claims 1, 7 and 16-19
- wherein a reply unfold control is displayed in association with at least a part of the at least one repost comment, in claims 1, 7, and 16-19
- a repost unfold control is displayed within the first comment subarea in claims 1, 7, and 16-19
-at least one processing unit in claims 16 and 17
-at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions to be executed by the at least one processing unit in claims 16 and 17
-A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon in claims 18 and 19
-A processor in claims 18 and 19
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 user interfaces, apparatuses, processors, client applications, non-transitory computer readable storage media, terminal devices and modules to perform “presenting a post, allowing comments on the post, allowing people to repost with a comment, presenting a repost comment subarea, and a regular comment subarea, displaying folded replies and folded repost comments, and jumping to a repost comment” 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. Reciting design choices such as dividing the comment area into two subareas, and providing user controls such as a reply unfold control displaying in association with the repost comment, or a repost unfold control is displayed within the first comment subarea does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea, and are merely instructing the abstract idea to be performed on generic computing devices. Thus claims 1, 7, and 16-19 are not patent eligible because the claims are directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Dependent claims 3-6, 8, and 10-12 are also given the full two part analysis both individually and in combination with the claims they depend on herein:
-Claim 3 adds the step of allowing a user to post a comment with their repost, or not post a comment and just have a default repost comment. Relaying information made by a reposting a user in the form of a comment or default message is still an act of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), therefore it is more of the same abstract idea. There are no additional elements in claims 3 and 15 therefore the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
-Claim 4 further specifies that default repost comments can’t be replied to and don’t count towards a comment count total. Since this is simply another rule for how users can interact with each other on the platform, the abstract idea is still directed to “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), therefore it is more of the same abstract idea. There are no additional elements in claim 4 therefore the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
-Claim 5 further adds a further limitation of the user who posted the repost comment having an association with the user viewing the platform. This requirement of the users having some kind of established relationship is another rule which falls under “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), therefore it is more of the same abstract idea. There are no additional elements in claim 5 therefore the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
-Claim 6 includes a series of steps to determine how users are ranked, specifically that comments with user input messages are brought to the top, and they are also ranked by the “intimacy” of a viewing user to the reposting user. This is still an act of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), therefore it is more of the same abstract idea. Creating more rules to how interactions are to be seen falls within the scope of the previously rejected claims. There are no additional elements in claim 6 therefore the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
-Claim 8 merely adds another user or users who reposted the same post as the second user and has an association with them. Allowing more interactions than one is still an act of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), therefore it is more of the same abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional element user interface is also used in this claim, however, it is still a general link because its use does not meaningfully limit the claim according to the provisions set forth in MPEP 2106.05. There are no new additional elements otherwise therefore the claims have not been integrated into a practical application and significantly more has not been found.
-Claim 10 merely adds the ability to add a repost comment during the repost by the second user. Enabling a user to comment on something while sharing it is still an act of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), therefore it is more of the same abstract idea. The interface element is simply an additional element that is an example of generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment or field of use of interactive user interfaces. It is merely a generic feature of user interfaces and does not meaningfully limit the claim in order to consider it to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or include significantly more.
-Claim 11 adds the additional step of presenting an interface to allow a user to input a comment when they perform an input on the interface. This is a means to facilitate interaction between people through comments. Allowing people to interact with each other is still an act of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), therefore it is more of the same abstract idea. The interface area is simply an additional element that is an example of generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment or field of use of interactive user interfaces as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). It is merely a generic feature of user interfaces and does not meaningfully limit the claim in order to consider it to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or include significantly more.
-Claim 12 adds the additional step of providing an interface in which users can select a variety of emoticons in response to a user input, which the last emoticon being incompletely displayed presumably to indicate that it is a scrollable list of emoticons. Since emoticons are simply an expression of emotion through a graphical drawing, it is still an act of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C), therefore it is more of the same abstract idea. Presenting the emoticons in a convenient way to the user is still part of the abstract idea because it simply provides an effective interface to manage interactions with users. The incomplete display of an emoticon is simply a way to communicate within the user interface that there are more options that can be chosen. The additional element “interface area” is repeated, but it is still an example of generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment or field of use of interactive user interfaces as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(h). The features added in claim 12 are still a general link because they merely introduce high level interface features, simply implementing interfaces by their very nature. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Subject Matter Distinguished Over Prior Art
Claims 1, 3-6, 16, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101
Using claim 1 as a representative claim also applicable to claims 16 and 18, the prior art of record (specifically Reis and Twitter) fail to teach or suggest the amended features of:
-in response to the request, presenting, within the comment area in the user interface, a first comment subarea dedicated to displaying at least one repost comment related to reposting of the post and a second comment subarea dedicated to displaying regular comments for the post,
-wherein the at least one repost comment is displayed in a folded form within the first comment subarea, and replies to the at least one repost comment are displayed in a folded form in association with the at least one repost comment,
- wherein a reply unfold control is displayed in association with at least a part of the at least one repost comment, and is triggerable for unfolding a first number of folded replies to a corresponding repost comment in association with the corresponding repost comment within the first comment subarea, and a repost unfold control is displayed within the first comment subarea and is triggerable for unfolding a second number of folded repost comments within the first comment subarea.
The specific functionalities of wherein a reply unfold control is displayed in association with at least a part of the at least one repost comment, and is triggerable for displaying a first number of folded replies to a corresponding repost comment, and a repost unfold control is displayed within the first comment subarea and is triggerable for displaying a second number of folded repost comments recite a specific series of user interactions that have not been taught or suggested in the prior art of record, even as an obvious combination. For example, Reis and Twitter lack comment areas that have specific subareas in which repost comments and regular comments are separated. It is noted that “repost comment” is explicitly defined in the original disclosure as a “comment related to reposting actions” in [0026] of the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the underlined limitations above is that the interface has a functionality allowing the user to display folded replies to a repost comment and another control for displaying more repost comments. Combined with the preceding limitations which require the comment subareas to be within the comment area, these features define over Reis and Twitter, which have completely different locations for displaying regular comments and repost comments, which are not both confined to a comment area.
Another prior art of record, Anima et al. (US 20190121518 A1) does display an activity page that teaches repost comment functionalities in the form of “re-share along with comments from the user” in [0070]. Whilst Anima also displays a reply unfold control in Fig. 13 1202, which unfolds the replies that were previously not seen in Fig. 12, Anima does not teach a repost unfold control, or a comment area with a first and second comment subarea within the comment area, one for repost comments and regular comments. Therefore, even a hypothetical combination of Reis, Twitter, and Anima would not satisfy each and every limitation of the claims above. The remaining prior art of record relied upon, including Imbrie, Ball, Cohen, or Fong fail to remedy these deficiencies. Even the new prior art of record, Jeong et al. (US 12052477 B2) discloses concurrently displayed comment sections for best comments and common comments, but even in a hypothetical combination, it would not have taught each and every limitation.
Claims 7, 8, 10-12, 17, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Using Claim 7 as a representative claim also applicable to claims 17 and 19, the prior art of record (specifically Reis and Twitter) fails to teach or suggest the amended feature: - and in response to a first predetermined operation of the user on the first indication, jumping to the comment area to display the repost comment, wherein the comment area comprises a first comment area dedicated to displaying at least one repost comment related to reposting of the post and a second comment area dedicated to displaying regular comments for the post, the first comment subarea being displayed above the second comment subarea within a single user interface, such that the at least one repost comment in the first comment subarea and the regular comments in the second comment subarea are concurrently presented in the same user interface.
While Twitter does teach a comment area for repost comments and a comment area for regular comments, there is no mechanism or manner in which a user can jump to a comment area to display a repost comment in response to a first indication that the user reposted a post. In Twitter and Reis, the indications that the user reposted the post already include the repost comment displayed, therefore, it would not be possible to jump to the comment area to display the repost comment in response to a predetermined operation on the indication. The remaining prior art of record relied upon, including Imbrie, Ball, Cohen, or Fong fail to remedy these deficiencies. Even the new prior art of record, Jeong et al. (US 12052477 B2) discloses concurrently displayed comment sections for best comments and common comments, but even in a hypothetical combination, it would not have taught each and every limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments over rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 specifically for claims 1, 16, and 18, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s assertions in Step 2A Prong 1, that the amended claim does not merely recite a “social interaction rule,” and that the claims recite a specific configuration and behavior of graphical user interface (GUI) elements on a terminal device, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The particular arrangement of GUI elements does not reflect a technical improvement to a “concrete, technology-rooted problem unique to computing devices: how to organizing and present heterogenous categories of user-contributed content (repost comments, replies to a repost comments, and regular comments) within the inherently limited display area of a terminal device user interface.” The examiner asserts that in Step 2A Prong 1, the analysis determines whether the claims recite an abstract idea, and thus, since the claims recite steps which manage how a user interacts with other users through repost comments, replies to repost comments, and regular comments, there is at least a recitation of “managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals” which falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Furthermore, MPEP 2106.04 states that even when the “certain method of organizing human activity” is an interaction between a user and computer, there can still be recitation of an abstract idea. “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. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). While the alleged improvements to computer functionality are to be addressed in Step 2A Prong 2, or Step 2B, the Core Wireless comparison is not persuasive because the improvement in Core Wireless was directed to a specific user interface feature that provided a new computer functionality. MPEP 2106.05(a)(1) states, “x. An improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 125 USPQ2d 1436, 1440-41 (Fed. Cir. 2018); “ However, this differentiates from the present claims which merely provides an arrangement of GUI elements at an “apply it” level to manage personal interactions between people. This distinction is also relevant to the Data Engine comparison in page 10 of the applicant’s remarks, in which a “specific method for navigating through complex three-dimensional spreadsheets” provided an “efficient method of navigating.” However, this differentiates from the present claims because improvements in Data Engine provide techniques unique to computers to perform tasks that were previously unable to be performed. However, in the present claims, the concept of unfolding comments, or separating the user interface screen into sub-areas are more akin to providing a design choice along with generic computer functionalities. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Thus the applicant’s arguments that the claims are more than a description of social behavior; “a precise prescription for how a computer device organizes screen real estate and renders content in response to user input” is not persuasive because the applicant fails to identify how the claims do anything more than “identify, analyze, and present certain data to a user” particularly in the context of conveying user interactions via a computer.
Regarding arguments over Step 2A Prong 2, the applicant asserts that the claims “positively recite” the very functionality of improvement to how display space is saved. However, the examiner disagrees that the alleged improvement of “the limited display area of a terminal device is conserved by preserving access, on demand, to additional content” is a technical improvement to user interface functionality. In fact, the concept at hand does not concern the computer’s or graphical user interface’s capability or functionality, but merely relate to the user’s experience and satisfaction with the arrangement of how interactions are displayed. Therefore, in response to the applicant’s argument that the longstanding problem in mobile and content sharing application “fixed, limited size, yet a single repost may attract many repost comments...” the examiner asserts that the problem in and of itself is a problem within the abstract idea of how interactions are managed and displayed to users. Thus, while the claims may reflect an improvement over conventional approaches, since the improvement is to the abstract idea itself, and not an improvement to user interface technology or functionality, there is no improvement to technology or technical field reflected in the claims. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states, “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. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments that the claimed solution “provides a particular, ordered display architecture that simultaneously preserves the user’s spatial context, conserves screen real estate, and gives the user fine-grained, controllable access to additional content,” is not persuasive because none of the features above expand the functionality of user interface technology, they are merely improvements to the user experience by the nature of how the user interface is arranged. This differentiates from any of the examples provided(Core Wireless, Data Engine Technologies, Examples 37) which all provided new functionalities that were previously unavailable, not merely an arrangement of known generic computer functionalities that improved the abstract idea. Furthermore, regarding the comparison to Trading Technologies Int’l, the examiner notes that this example is utilized in the MPEP to argue that improvements to an abstract idea do not qualify as technical improvements. The examiner stands by the assertion that the claims are no more than an improvement to the abstract idea of how user interactions are managed, because the claimed “folded-display + dedicated-subarea + hierarchically-distinct dual-unfold-control architecture” is merely an arrangement of generic GUI elements. The argument that this arrangement would “equally apply to enterprise messaging applications, e-commerce review systems, document collaboration tools, or any other context” is not relevant because in the present claims it is merely a manner of displaying user interactions, which is a subjective matter of preference, not a technical improvement. The concept of unfolding information is inherent to generic user interface technology, not a new and improved functionality. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding step 2B, the applicant asserts that the claims amount to “significantly more” than any alleged abstract idea, alleging that the office action “affirmatively establishes that the claimed combination is not well-understood, routine, and conventional.” However, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because they are based on a false pretense that non-obviousness over the prior art is evidence against the “well-understood, routine, conventional” consideration. However, the MPEP 2106.05 specifically states,
“Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). 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. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).”
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments that because of the prior art-findings, the combination supplies “an inventive concept,” or that a design choice that is “novel and non-obvious over the entire prior art record is, by definition, not “routine and conventional” are non-persuasive because patentability under 102 and 103 is not a guarantee of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The examiner notes that MPEP 2106.05(d) considers whether the additional elements or combination of additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Since this consideration overlaps with the improvement consideration (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and the rejection as written does not rely on an assertion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional, there is no burden on the examiner to provide Berkheimer evidence to support the rejection. Thus, while the claims distinguish over the prior art, they are still no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, given that the concept of displaying two different regions, or providing unfolding repost comments are merely part of the abstract idea. A novel, or improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea, and can be deemed ineligible under 35 U.S.C.. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments regarding the eligibility of claims 1, 16, and 18 are not persuasive, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 stands.
Regarding the eligibility of independent claims 1, 17, and 19, the applicant asserts that the claims recite a particular “GUI-navigation” mechanism that addresses a recognized technical problem in conventional content-sharing applications. However, the examiner disagrees with the notion that providing two distinct categories of user-contributed content (repost comments and regular comments) concurrently is a technical improvement in the field of computers or graphical user interfaces. While the claims may differ from the prior art in that they hold this feature, this is not necessarily a technical improvement to a particular technology nor is it a functionality that was not available to generic computers before. As stated previously in regards to claim 1, the Core Wireless and Data Engine comparisons are not persuasive because the present claims do not add any additional computer functionality beyond what is capable by a generic computing device, unlike Core Wireless and Data Engine which improved the computing devices themselves by enabling improved capabilities. Therefore, the applicant’s argument in Step 2A Prong 1, that the claimed “jump-to-structured-subarea workflow provides a particular technical solution to the problem of navigating from a post-presentation interface to a comment-management interface in which heterogenous content categories are simultaneously accessible” is not persuasive because none of the features above provide technical improvements to graphical user interfaces, even when considered in combination or as a whole.
Regarding step 2a Prong 2, the arguments remain unpersuasive because concurrently presenting two pieces of information, even with a specific defined spatial relationship is merely “apply it” or mere instructions to a perform the abstract idea on a generic computer. The formatting of the two sub-areas, while they differ from the prior art, do not recite an improvement to technology. Furthermore, the applicant states, “concurrent presentation of heterogenous content categories in a single user interface) is a recognized technical concern in mobile and content-sharing applications.” However, the claimed limitations at hand do not provide a technical improvement that provides a solution to the issue, because merely instructing both pieces of information to be displayed on a generic computing device is not a technical improvement to the field of user interface technology. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding step 2B, the applicant repeats the “well-understood, routine, conventional arguments” presented in regards to claims 1, 16, and 18. However, these arguments remain unpersuasive because novelty or non-obviousness over the prior art, while it may be an “overlapping” consideration, is not a guarantee of eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. Thus claims 7, 17 and 19 remain ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 and their dependent claims 8, and 10-12 also remain ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
-Jeong et al. (US 12052477 B2) discloses a comment management system in which a comment display area displays two sub areas concurrently, one for the best comments and one for all comments. In Fig. 1 these areas are displayed concurrently, and another embodiment in Fig. 7 separates the areas by a tab.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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