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 nonfinal rejection in response to amendments and remarks filed on 10/06/2025, which have been placed under consideration in a continued examination (RCE) dated 11/04/2025. 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/06/2025 has been entered.
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 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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 amended 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 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.” 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. 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to arguments over rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant asserts that the office appears to oversimply claim limitations and asserts that the claims merely apply the abstract to generic computers and generally link to user interface technology. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Though the claims are segmented to show that an abstract idea is at least recited, the determination of whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea occurs in Step 2A Prong 2, and Step 2B, which accounts for the claims, including the additional elements, as a whole, therefore, no limitation is unaccounted for. Furthermore, in page 8 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues that the claimed invention is directed to a method involving a terminal device, that paragraph 50 describes multiple improvements, and that the claimed improvements provide users with convenient and quick access to repost comments with simplified user operations. However, these arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons. An invention being directed to a method involving a terminal device alone does not precede the limitations from reciting an abstract idea, especially when the terminal device is merely an “apply it” level additional element. Furthermore, paragraph [0050] states, “[0050] In the example shown in FIG. 3A, three repost comments are shown in the first comment area 315, including repost comments 332-1 and 332-2 inputted by User A and User B, which are collectively referred to as user input comments 332, and a default repost comment 324, e.g., "Reposted this post," generated for User C in the case that User C inputs no comment” however, this section does not make it apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that a technical improvement is reflected in the claim limitations. Please see MPEP 2106.05(a) for information on improvements to technology. Finally, it is not clear that providing users with a convenient and quick access to repost comments with simplified user operations is a technical improvement. Within the scope of the claims, the alleged improvements are reflected in the features of jumping to a repost comment, displaying a first number of folded replies, and displaying a second number of folded replies. These alleged improvements are merely improvements to the abstract idea of displaying such interactions, however, the claims are not claimed in a manner that necessarily reflects the improvement is technological. MPEP 2106.05(a) 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.” Similarly, merely providing a user interface button to display repost comments, or replies to repost comments, is merely providing a user with more information to “manage personal behaviors or interactions” but does not improve computers or technology. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments that the comment area combines the repost comments and reply comments for the post in the same interface, consequently improving the user experience when browsing content are not persuasive because using a user interface to provide a user with more information does not provide a technical improvement. Therefore, the claims are not “oversimplified” to be managing personal interactions between, but the claims are acknowledged to be merely “applying” the abstract idea as mere instructions to be performed on generic computers.
Furthermore, the applicant’s argument that since the display space is limited, the repost/reply comments are displayed in a folded form in the comment area, and by performing the claimed functions, the limited display space in the user interface can be further sufficiently utilized, reaching a balance between the interface layout and information diversity. However, this argument is not persuasive because the claim language does not reflect this improvement nor is the improvement made apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art in the original disclosure. In the specification, paragraphs [0055], [0057], and [0082] mentioned saving limited display space, but does not sufficiently explain how such features provides a technological improvement to computers to improves a particular technical field such as user interface technology. If display space is saved because a user can interact with the computer to hide or display certain information, this alone does not make it apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claims provide an improvement to technology. Furthermore, the claims are not meaningfully limited such that the alleged improvement is reflected. While a user is able to toggle unfold controls, the claims do not positively recite functionality that provides an improvement to how display space is saved. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive regarding independent claims 1, 16 and 18.
Regarding applicant’s arguments over independent claim 7, the applicant argues that the claimed invention enables conveniently, quickly, and flexibly adding repost comments in reposting, as well as conveniently and quickly viewing repost comments and interact with comment initiators with simplified operations. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Even within the scope of claim 7, it is not apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that a technical improvement is reflected within the scope of the claims. The alleged improvements that allegedly provide the convenience, speed, and flexibility are merely reciting the outcome of the inputs, and not a technical improvement that inherently provides an improvement to the speed. While a claimed function such as “in response to a first predetermined operation of the user on the first indication, jumping to the comment area to display the repost comment,” may reduce the amount of clicks for a particular user, in comparison to the alternative of opening the comment section and manually finding the repost comment, this improvement is claimed in a manner such that it is an improvement to the abstract idea of “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people.” It is merely a design choice that results in a particular interaction being programmed to be displayed. This does not qualify as technical improvement because it does not add any functionality to computers, and is merely using generic computers to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the claimed invention “optimizes the layout of user interface to enable users to acquire information and data they need through the terminal device more quickly and efficiently” is not a persuasive argument for the same reasons listed above, specifically that the alleged improvement is not the result of a technical solution, but of an improved business process. Improving how users interact with another is an abstract idea improvement, and it is still not apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that computer functionality or a technical field is improved upon. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In regards to applicant’s arguments over the prior art, the applicant’s arguments over amended claims 1, 3-6, 16 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive for the following reasons. The applicant asserts that Twitter’s teachings contrast amended claim 1 which explicitly requires upon receiving the request for presenting the comment area, both the first comment subarea and second comment subarea are presented together in the user interface. In Twitter, the quote tweets and replies to a tweet occupy the same area in a user interface, and a Twitter user would have to switch tabs by clicking different icons to view each reply or quote tweet. The examiner agrees, that based on amended claim 1 which specifies comment subareas within the comment area, that Twitter does not satisfy the amended limitation. Furthermore, the applicant alleges that neither Twitter nor Reis disclose or suggest anything about unfold controls triggerable for displaying folded comments. The examiner also finds this argument persuasive because both prior art references lack an explicit teaching. While further search and consideration has been performed and Anima et al. (US 20190121518 A1) has been found to teach unfold controls, the examiner agrees that there is no motivation to modify Reis or Twitter by providing specifically the repost unfold control, since both Reis and Twitter present the repost comments and replies in separate areas/pages. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn and the claims are now allowable over prior art if amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Anima et al. (US 20190121518 A1) discloses receiving an input from website to produce a stream of related content which includes other individual’s re-shares with comments, and an unfold control which displays the hidden comments.
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
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626