DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 01/26/2026. Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16-19 have been canceled. Claims 1, 10, and 11 have been amended. Claims 23-25 have been added. Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 20-25 are pending in the case.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/09/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretations/Examiner’s Notes
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow (see In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Also, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). The following is provided to aid the reader in understanding how at least some claim elements (also commonly referred to as claim limitations), as a whole, have been considered in the rejections below:
“in response to” + {a potential trigger without a preceding step confirming that the trigger actually took place} and/or “in accordance with a determination that” + {a contingent limitation} [e.g. claims 1 and 7] = Even though the prior art rejection included below does not depend on the following technicality, it is nonetheless respectfully noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Therefore, as currently claimed, functionalities that currently depend on a “in response to” and/or “in accordance with a determination that” condition being true may not be narrowing the claims to the extent it may have been intended since, for purposes of prior art analysis, any prior art scenario showing at least one mappable instance wherein the contingency/triggering condition is not met/true would suffice to anticipate or teach these aspects. See “Contingent Limitations” in MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II and/or MPEP § 2143.03.
“for” + {an intended use/result} [e.g. claims 1, 7, and 21] = limitations reciting “for” followed by an ideal use case or end scenario are written in a form describing an intended use/result. Therefore, any instance/example in the prior art that would be reasonably interpretable as being at least capable of performing/enabling the intended use/result would meet the claim limitation. See, e.g., MPEP §§ 2111.04 & 2114.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 20, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rochette et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0365633, hereinafter “Rochette”) in view of Holland (US Patent No. 11,347,388, hereinafter “Holland”), in further view of Park et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2014/0240579, hereinafter “Park”).
As to claims 1, 10, and 11, Rochette shows a method [¶ 26], an electronic device [¶ 06], and a concomitant non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [¶ 173] for video recommendation [fig. 12V; ¶¶ 380-381], comprising:
selecting one or more videos of a predetermined type from videos posted in an application [e.g. selecting one or more videos of a predetermined type from videos posted in an application (fig. 12V; ¶¶ 380-381)],
the one or more videos of the predetermined type being posted by at least one poster having a social affinity in the application with a user of the application exceeding a threshold [e.g. the one or more videos of the predetermined type being posted by at least one poster having a social affinity in the application with a user of the application exceeding a threshold (like “Allison Frost” in fig. 12V; ¶¶ 380-381)] {…};
in accordance with a determination that a predetermined condition is satisfied, selecting at least one candidate video to be recommended from the one or more videos of the predetermined type posted in the application; presenting respective images corresponding to the at least one candidate video with a widget in a home screen page of an electronic device, the widget being different from the application; and in response to a selection of one of the presented images, activating an interface of the application to present the candidate video corresponding to the selected image in the application as a recommended video [“{…} in FIG. 12V, device 500 is displaying user interface 1202 that includes widget 1206 c. Widget 1206 c is a widget that is associated with Allison Frost (e.g., in the family account of the user of device 500). In some embodiments, device 500 displays a representation 1212 b (e.g., avatar, photo, etc.) of Allison Frost overlaid on a portion of widget 1206 c (e.g., the lower-right portion of the widget) to indicate that widget 1206 c is associated with Allison Frost. Further, in FIG. 12V, device 500 is displaying indicator 1211 to indicate that the currently displayed widget is the first of three widgets associated with different applications that are included in widget 1206 c.
In FIG. 12V, widget 1206 c is displaying a photos application widget of a photo browsing and/or editing application on device 500. While displaying the photos widget, widget 1206 c includes representations of one or more photos or videos associated with Allison Frost (e.g., Pic 1), such as photos or videos that include Allison Frost and/or were sent to the user of device 500 by Allison Frost and/or were sent by the user of device 500 to Allison Frost. The photos widget optionally does not include photos or videos that are accessible via the photos application on device 500 that are not associated with Allison Frost. If widget 1206 c were instead associated with Charlie Stone, the photos widget shown in FIG. 12V would optionally instead include representations of one or more photos or videos associated with Charlie Stone, such as photos or videos that include Charlie Stone and/or were sent to the user of device 500 by Charlie Stone and/or were sent by the user of device 500 to Charlie Stone, and would optionally not include photos or videos that are accessible via the photos application on device 500 that are not associated with Charlie Stone (e.g., Pic 1).” (¶¶ 380-381)], {…}
As indicated above, Rochette shows selecting one or more videos of a predetermined type from videos posted in an application. However, Rochette does not appear to explicitly recite the use case wherein “the one or more videos of the predetermined type being accessible within a predetermined period of time, and being hidden and inaccessible to the user after the predetermined period of time” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Holland shows:
selecting one or more videos of a predetermined type from videos posted in an application [e.g. selecting one or more videos of a predetermined type (like ephemeral videos) from videos posted in a social media application (col. 5, lines 1-3)],
the one or more videos of the predetermined type being posted by at least one poster having a social affinity in the application with a user of the application exceeding a threshold [e.g. the one or more videos of the predetermined type being posted by at least one poster having a social affinity in the application with a user of the application exceeding a threshold, or a “friend” (col. 7, lines 43-47)], and
the one or more videos of the predetermined type being accessible within a predetermined period of time, and being hidden and inaccessible to the user after the predetermined period of time [e.g. the one or more videos of the ephemeral type are accessible within a predetermined period of time, and are hidden and inaccessible to the user after the predetermined period of time (col. 4, lines 34-35; col. 5, lines 23-28)];
in accordance with a determination that a predetermined condition is satisfied, selecting at least one candidate video to be recommended from the one or more videos of the predetermined type posted in the application [e.g. selecting which video to present to a user based on any triggering criteria (col. 7, lines 39-63)];
presenting respective images corresponding to the at least one candidate video [e.g. presenting a cover card corresponding to the candidate video (fig. 3A)] with a widget in {…} an electronic device, the widget being different from the application [e.g. the cover cards/videos may be presented via a widget/graphical user interface that is different from a traditional application (col. 3, lines 18-35; col. 7, lines 26-38; & col. 15, line 63 - col. 16, line 03)]; and
in response to a selection of one of the presented images, activating an interface of the application to present the candidate video corresponding to the selected image in the application as a recommended video [e.g. selecting a cover card may activate an interface of the application to present the candidate video corresponding to the selected image in the application as a recommended video (col. 9, lines 35-46)],{…}
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rochette and Holland before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Holland’s ephemeral video techniques into Rochette. The rationale for doing so would have been that Rochette had already explicitly expressed a desire to improve the user’s experience by enhancing the user’s interactions (Rochette: ¶ 04), and Holland’s approach achieved this goal while also reducing the need for extraneous resources (Holland: col. 2, lines 24-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rochette and Allen (hereinafter, the “Rochette-Holland” combination) in order to obtain the above aspects of the invention as recited in claims 1, 10, and 11.
Moreover, Rochette-Holland further shows:
presenting, in a further widget, a guidance {…} [e.g. presenting any “guidance” in a widget, which may have any intended use (including “for capturing/recording the predetermined type of video”) | See Holland: figs. 3A-8 and Rochette: fig. 12V; ¶¶ 380-381]; and
in response to selection on the guidance {…}, activating a further interface of the application {…} [e.g. in response to the possibility 1 of receiving a selection on the guidance, a further interface of the application may be activated. This activated further interface may or may not happen to have an intended use “for video capturing in the application.” The further interface also comprises one or more buttons, at least one of which also may or may not have the intended use “for initiating capturing of the predetermined type of video.” See Rochette: ¶¶ 53 & 96 and Holland: figs. 3A-8.]
Even though it has just been established that the limitations limiting themselves to be intended “for” an intended use or result do not carry considerable patentable weight for purposes of prior art analysis, in the interests of compacting prosecution, it appears that Rochette-Holland does not appear explicitly recite the narrowest possible version of these limitations as apparently intended in a scenario where they were to be rewritten to actually carry patentable weight. In an analogous art, Park shows:
wherein the method further comprises: presenting, in a further widget, a guidance for capturing the predetermined type of video [“Various camera widgets may be displayed on the touch screen 190 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. The camera widget may have a plurality of types, and the camera widget corresponding to the user selection may be displayed on the touch screen 190. For example, FIGS. 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, and 5F show three types of camera widgets 503, 504, and 505 to which the same storage location has been set.” (¶ 106)
“The third camera widget 505 includes the storage location name 505 a and the camera widget button 505 b. The third camera widget 505 may include the storage location name 505 a corresponding to a storage location (e.g., a folder whose folder name is Hawaii Travel) where a photographed image is stored, and the camera widget button 505 b for executing a camera application by a touch.” (¶ 140)]; and
in response to selection on the guidance for capturing the predetermined type of video, activating a further interface of the application for video capturing in the application, wherein the further interface at least comprises a button for initiating capturing of the predetermined type of video [“{…} The third camera widget 505 may include a shortcut icon. When the shortcut icon is selected, movement to the storage location name 505 a may occur, or the camera application may be executed.” (¶ 109)
“Referring to FIG. 7A, the first touch (not shown), which is inputted by the user on the camera widget button 505 b of the third camera widget 505, may be detected. The controller 110 detects the first touch (not shown) on the camera widget button 504 b of the third camera widget 505 through the touch screen 190 and the touch screen controller 195. The controller 110 receives x21 and y21 coordinates corresponding to the first location information (e.g., the first touch (not shown)) corresponding to the first touch (not shown) from the touch screen controller 195.
{…}
At operation S603 of FIG. 6, the camera application is executed.
Referring to FIG. 7B, the controller 110 executes and displays the camera application 512 in response to the first touch 511 of the second camera widget 504. The controller 110 may execute and display the camera application 512 in response to the first touch (not shown) of the third camera widget 505.
The camera application 512 may include a storage location name 512 a corresponding to the storage location (e.g., a folder whose folder name is Hawaii Travel) within the storage unit where a photographed image is stored, a view finder 512 b where a subject is viewed, a touch 513 of a photographing button 512 c, a thumbnail image 512 d where a photographed image is reduced and displayed, and an environment setting icon 512 e which can move to an environment setting screen of the camera application and/or the camera widget.” (¶¶ 144-148)].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rochette, Holland, and Park before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Park’s “for capturing the predetermined type of video”-related intended uses/results into the Holland-Rochette combination. The rationale for doing so would have been “to enhance the utility value of” (Park: ¶ 03) the Rochette-Holland combination by improving the user experience of its existing widgets to cater to more intended use cases, including for capturing its already taught “predetermined type of video.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rochette, Allen, and Park (hereinafter, the “Rochette-Holland-Park” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claims 1, 10, and 11.
As to dependent claims 2, 14, and 22, Rochette-Holland-Park further shows:
wherein the predetermined condition is associated with a posted time of a video, and wherein selecting the at least one candidate video comprises: selecting the at least one candidate video according to a respective posted time of the one or more videos [e.g. the predetermined condition may be in at least some way “associated” with a posted time of a video, and selecting the at least one candidate video may comprise an intended result of selecting one “in accordance with” a respective posted time of the one or more videos (Holland: col. 5, lines 24-38 & col. 6, lines 48-66) | See also Rochette: fig. 12V; ¶¶ 380-381.].
As to dependent claims 3 and 15, Rochette-Holland-Park further shows:
wherein the predetermined condition is associated with a remaining accessible time of a video, and wherein selecting the at least one candidate video comprises: selecting the at least one candidate video according to a respective remaining accessible time of the one or more videos [e.g. the predetermined condition may be in at least some way “associated” with a remaining accessible time of a video, and selecting the at least one candidate video may comprise an intended result of selecting one “in accordance with” a respective remaining accessible time of the one or more videos (Holland: (col. 4, lines 34-35 & col. 5, lines 23-28)) | See also Rochette: fig. 12V; ¶¶ 380-381.].
As to dependent claims 6 and 20, Rochette-Holland-Park further shows:
while presenting the respective images corresponding to the at least one candidate video with the widget, presenting an indication of a respective remaining accessible time of the at least one candidate video [e.g. presenting an expiration time for an ephemeral video (Holland: col. 4, lines 34-35; col. 5, lines 23-28)].
As to dependent claims 23, 24, and 25, Rochette-Holland-Park further shows:
wherein the one or more videos comprise a plurality of videos, and the method further comprises: receiving a video switch command via a slide gesture by the user performed on the interface of the application while the recommended video is presented; and in response to the video switch command, presenting a further video on the interface of the application, the further video being one of the plurality of videos that is different from the recommended video [“A computer-implemented method for digital content navigation based on directional input may include (i) maintaining a user content pod for each user account within a group of user accounts maintained by a social networking platform, (ii) generating a cover card for each user content pod, and (iii) providing, within a graphical user interface for interacting with posts made to the social networking platform, a scrollable display of vertically arranged selectable cover cards configured to (1) scroll vertically between cover cards of different user content pods in response to receiving vertical swiping input and (2) scroll horizontally between one or more posts of an individual user content pod in response to receiving horizontal swiping input. Various other methods, systems, and computer-readable media are also disclosed.” (Holland: Abstract)
“A user content pod may include posts (i.e., posted user compositions) of a variety of different types. For example, a user content pod may include discrete text-based posts, media-based posts (which may include either a single media item or a collage of multiple media items), and/or reference-based posts (e.g., with a link to an online article). In consequence, posts may include a variety of content, including but not limited to a digital photograph, a graphic, text, a digital video and/or a digital recording of a music composition.” (Holland: col. 5, lines 08-17)].
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rochette-Holland-Park in further view of Tyler et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2021/0286510, hereinafter “Tyler”).
As to dependent claims 7 and 21, Rochette-Holland-Park further shows “adding the widget to an environment of the electronic device where the application is running” (see Rochette: fig. 12V; ¶¶ 380-381). However, in lieu of simply pointing to the considerable breadth of the limitations “presenting a guidance for adding the widget in a predetermined page of the application; and in response to a selection of the guide, {…} adding the widget to an environment where the application is running” as currently recited and/or the spectrum of possible mappings its broadest reasonable interpretation would cover (which arguably would be reasonably taught by the prompting/guiding feature to create a new gallery, as shown above), it is potentially conceded that Rochette-Holland-Park does not appear to explicitly recite a “presenting a guidance for adding the widget in a predetermined page of the application; and in response to a selection of the guide, performing one of the following: presenting guidance steps for adding the widget, or adding the widget to an environment where the application is running” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Tyler shows:
presenting a guidance for adding the widget in a predetermined page of the application; and in response to a selection of the guide, performing one of the following: presenting guidance steps for adding the widget, or adding the widget to an environment of the electronic device where the application is running, to present the widget in the home screen page of the electronic device [“On some computer systems, a widget can be added into a widget screen user interface from a user interface showing a listing of applications that have available widgets, or from a dedicated application for creating a particular type of customized widget (e.g., an application that creates a home screen widget for weather forecasting, an application that creates a widget for saving bookmarks, etc.). These methods do not provide a preview of multiple preconfigured widgets corresponding to different applications in the same user interface and does not provide easy means to access both the configuration options for modifying a preconfigured widget and inserting the widget as preconfigured to a user-selected location. As disclosed herein, a widget selection and configuration user interface displays a collection of preconfigured widgets from multiple applications. From the widget selection and configuration user interface, widget-specific configuration options for a preconfigured widget and/or widget stack can be accessed and the preconfigured widget and/or widget stack can be directly added to another user interface. As disclosed herein the widget selection and configuration user interface serves the function of a mini library of preconfigured widgets and/or widget stacks, but also allows access to widget-specific configuration options for preconfigured widgets and/or widget stacks. The widget selection and configuration user interface and the widget-specific configuration user interface optionally display the widgets with the currently selected configuration options, and real-time data from the widget(s) corresponding application(s). The widget selection and configuration user interface that serves the combined functions of allowing the user to view preconfigured widgets and providing access to configuration options for the widgets, as well as allowing the user to select and insert/move one or more widgets from the widget selection and configuration user interface or widget-specific configuration user interface to another user-selected location improves enhances the operability of the device (e.g., by making it easier to discover widgets and adding widgets to another location) and makes the user-device interface more efficient (e.g., by helping the user to achieve an intended outcome with required inputs and reducing user mistakes when operating/interacting with the device), which improves battery life of the device (e.g., by helping the user to use the device more quickly and efficiently).” (Tyler: ¶ 55) | For even further context/examples, see also Tyler: ¶¶ 660 & 762.].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Rochette, Holland, Park, and Tyler before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Tyler’s widget-adding guidance steps into the Rochette-Holland-Park combination. The rationale for doing so would have been “allowing the user to view preconfigured widgets and providing access to configuration options for the widgets, as well as allowing the user to select and insert/move one or more widgets from the widget selection and configuration user interface or widget-specific configuration user interface to another user-selected location improves enhances the operability of the device (e.g., by making it easier to discover widgets and adding widgets to another location) and makes the user-device interface more efficient (e.g., by helping the user to achieve an intended outcome with required inputs and reducing user mistakes when operating/interacting with the device), which improves battery life of the device (e.g., by helping the user to use the device more quickly and efficiently)” (Tyler: ¶ 55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rochette, Holland, Park, and Tyler in order to obtain the invention as recited in claims 7 and 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 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, KIEU VU can be reached on (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R. CALDERON IV/
Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
1 Examiner’s Note: claim 1 is a method claim, so when it recites “in response to” a trigger that has not been actively determined to have objectively occurred, then the limitation that depends on this “in response to” condition would not carry patentable weight if the prior art shows at least one occasion where the triggering condition is not met.
Prosecution Insights