Detailed Action
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is in reply to the Amendment filed on 2/6/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 13-14, 17 have been amended. The claim objections have been resolved by amendment. Applicant is invited to request a telephonic interview prior to next response.
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 17 are objected to for the following informalities: the first recitation of “the application” should read “an application.”
Claims 4-7, 12-15, and 20 are objected to for the following informality: “presenting operation guidance information in the target page if processing record information of a target object by a user satisfies a preset triggering condition” should read “presenting operation guidance information in the target page on the interface of the device in response to processing record information of a target object by a user satisfying a preset triggering condition”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
With reference to subsection II of MPEP 2111.04, it is 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.” MPEP 2143.03 further notes that “language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation,” with a contingent limitation “rais[ing] a question as to its limiting effect.”
In the pending claims, such contingent limitations include the steps of:
“if at least two pieces of the processing record information satisfy the preset triggering condition, the operation guidance information in the first presentation style comprises images of the target object associated with all the processing record information,” “if the processing record information of the target object by the user satisfies the preset triggering condition, presenting the operation guidance information in the first presentation style,” “if a presentation duration of the operation guidance information in the first presentation style reaches a presentation duration threshold and no triggering operation on the operation guidance information by the user is detected within a time period in which the operation guidance information is presented in the first presentation style, presenting the operation guidance information in the second presentation style” in Claim 4;
“if the successive page is not the target object associated page, using the successive page as the target page…and continuing to perform the step of presenting…if processing record information …satisfies a present triggering condition” in Claims 5 & 6;
“if processing record information of a target object by a user satisfies a preset triggering condition and a play progress of the target video is greater than or equal to a set progress threshold, presenting operation guidance information in the target page” in Claim 7;
and those limitations which depend thereon.
In the interest of a compact prosecution, art has nonetheless been applied to the contingent limitations of the method claims.
Examiner Note: It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention does not impose any limit on the interpretation of the claim unless such a recitation results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. [MPEP 2111.04]
Furthermore, when “the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction .” [MPEP 2111.02]
In the Claim 1, the statement in the preamble that the claimed method is “method for improving navigation within an application,” represents an intended use or purpose of the method, rather than a structural limitation, and as such is afforded little weight. See also MPEP 2103: “statements of intended use ... including statements of purpose” in the claims “raise a question as to its limiting effect.”
Claim Rejection - 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 19-20 are directed to a process, and claims 21-22 are directed to an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 19-22 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as described in MPEP 2106 (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
presenting a target page; and
presenting operation guidance information in the target page, in response to processing record information of a target object by a user satisfying a preset triggering condition, wherein the operation guidance information comprises instructions to perform at least one operation for navigating to a target object associated page, and wherein the processing record information indicates at least one historical interaction with the target object by the user; and
switching from presenting the target page to presenting the target object associated page in response to receiving input corresponding to the at least one operation, wherein the target object associated page corresponds to the processing record information, and wherein the target object associated page displays information associated with the target object.
The above limitations recite the concept of customized information presentation. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
An application
An interface of a device
An electronic device comprising: one or more processors; a storage apparatus for storing one or more programs; the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to carry out a method
A non-transient computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the program, when executed by a processor, carries out a method
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, 18, and 20 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. As for claims 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19, these claims are similar to the independent claims except that they recite the further additional elements of playing a video. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
An application
An interface of a device
An electronic device comprising: one or more processors; a storage apparatus for storing one or more programs; the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to carry out a method
A non-transient computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the program, when executed by a processor, carries out a method
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-
obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perera (US 20220122161 A1), in view of Tipograph et al (US 11475487 B1), hereinafter Tipograph.
Regarding Claim 1, Perera discloses a method for improving navigation within an application, comprising:
presenting a target page [video] of the application on an interface of a device (Perera: “FIG. 4A shows a screenshot of a video in which hotspots are displayed in a sidebar of a player window, in accordance with one or more embodiments. As described above, the video may be played using player 206 and the player 206 plays the video within player window 207.” [0060] – “The interactive video may be hosted in a website by including an URL 502 of the configuration file in a webpage. FIG. 6 shows a screenshot of webpage 600 hosting an interactive video ”[0066]);
presenting operation guidance information [cart GUI element] in the target page on the interface of the device, based on processing record information [add-to-cart] of a target object [product] by a user (Perera: “The interactive video includes a cart GUI element 224 that corresponds to a shopping cart integrated into video 202. The cart GUI element 224 may also indicate a number of products added to the shopping cart.” [0045] – “The user may add a product, e.g., product 220, to a shopping cart integrated in video 202. For example, the user may add the product 220 to the shopping cart using GUI element 218 from product information 216.” [0044]),
wherein the operation guidance information comprises instructions to perform at least one operation for navigating to a target object associated page [cart/checkout page] of the application (Perera: “The interactive video allows the user to access shopping cart 226 to view or edit a list of products 220 added to shopping cart 226. … The user may proceed to checkout process from the shopping cart 226, e.g., using GUI element 222.” [0046] – See Figure 2E), and
wherein the processing record information indicates at least one historical interaction with the target object by the user (Perera: “The user may add a product, e.g., product 220, to a shopping cart integrated in video 202. ” [0044] – “The cart GUI element 224 may also indicate a number of products added to the shopping cart.” [0045]); and
switching from presenting the target page to presenting the target object associated page in the interface of the device in response to receiving input corresponding to the at least one operation (Perera: “The interactive video includes a cart GUI element 224 that corresponds to a shopping cart integrated into video 202.” [0045] – “The interactive video allows the user to access shopping cart 226 to view or edit a list of products 220 added to shopping cart 226. …The user may proceed to checkout process from the shopping cart 226, e.g., using GUI element 222.” [0046] – “a checkout process, which includes inputting payment or shipping information and completing a transaction, is performed outside of the interactive video, e.g., in a webpage associated with an online store of the merchant. The checkout GUI 224 corresponds to a checkout webpage associated with the online store of the merchant.” [0047] – See Figures 2E-2F, where the screen switches to displaying the shopping bag and checkout pages in response to user interaction with elements 224 and 222.),
wherein the target object associated page corresponds to the processing record information, and wherein the target object associated page displays information associated with the target object (Perera: “The interactive video allows the user to access shopping cart 226 to view or edit a list of products 220 added to shopping cart 226. In some embodiments, the list of products in shopping cart 226 may be overlaid on video 202.” [0046] – “The checkout GUI 224 corresponds to a checkout webpage associated with the online store of the merchant.” [0047] – See Figures 2E-2F, which illustrate the cart/checkout pages displaying information corresponding to the user’s add-to-cart actions, and product information including price of each product.).
While Perera teaches that the presentation of operation guidance information in the target page is based on the processing record information [0044-0045], it does not specifically teach that the presenting is in response to processing record information of a target object by a user satisfying a preset triggering condition.
However, Tipograph teaches methods for interactive video that allow a user to instantiate a shopping cart for a selected product [Abstract], including that the presenting is in response to processing record information of a target object by a user satisfying a preset triggering condition (Tipograph: “The presence or absence of such interactive objects can vary as a shopper interacts with the curated destination environment. For example, when user clicks “Add to Cart,” and a shopping cart is instantiated, and an associated item or items is placed into that shopping cart. Once the item or items are added to the shopping cart, one or more new interactive objects (e.g., a “Checkout” or “View Cart” button) can be rendered within the curated destination environment, thus allowing user to navigate to and view their shopping cart.” Col. 17, lines 30-50– See also Figure 10: “once an item has been added to the remote shopping cart, the user can be presented with user-selectable options to “Keep Shopping” or “Checkout Now.”” Col. 37, lines 45-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Perera would continue to teach presenting operation guidance information in the target page on the interface of the device, based on processing record information of a target object by a user, except that now it would also teach the presenting is in response to processing record information of a target object by a user satisfying a preset triggering condition, according to the teachings of Tipograph. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improvement to the efficiency and navigability of an e-commerce transaction (Tipograph: Col. 2).
Examiner Note: For clarity, when two alternative claim limitations are presented [A or B], the selected limitation is underlined and the alternative is italicized.
Regarding Claim 2, Perera/Tipograph teach the interaction method according to claim 1,
wherein the target page comprises an option presentation area; the option presentation area is used for presenting at least one option (Perera: “The interactive video presents product information 210 related to content, such as product 208 … the product information 210 may allow the user to select an attribute 212 of product 208, e.g., a size, a color, or other attributes of the product.” [0043] – See Figure 2B.),
wherein the at least one option comprises a target option, the target option is an entry into the target object associated page or an entry into a page superior to the target object associated page (Perera: “The interactive video allows the user to access shopping cart 226 to view or edit a list of products 220 added to shopping cart 226. … The checkout GUI 224 corresponds to a checkout webpage associated with the online store of the merchant.” [0046--0047] – See Figures 2E-F, where the selected size option is included in the page.);
the option presentation area comprises at least one sub-presentation area each corresponding to one option, a presentation position of the operation guidance information in the target page is located in a sub-presentation area corresponding to the target option (Perera: “The interactive video presents product information 210 related to content, such as product 208 … the product information 210 may allow the user to select an attribute 212 of product 208, e.g., a size, a color, or other attributes of the product.” [0043] – See Figure 2B, “select” area.).
Regarding Claim 3, Perera/Tipograph teach the interaction method according to claim 1,
wherein the target page is used for playing a target video; the target video is associated with the target object (Perera: “FIG. 2B shows a screenshot of the interactive video presenting product information of a product, in accordance with one or more embodiments. The interactive video presents product information 210 related to content, such as product 208 (e.g., a woman's top) presented in video 202” [0043]);
the target object associated page comprises attribute information and/or state information of the target object (Perera: “The interactive video allows the user to access shopping cart 226 to view or edit a list of products 220 added to shopping cart 226. … The checkout GUI 224 corresponds to a checkout webpage associated with the online store of the merchant.” [0046--0047] – See Figures 2E-F, where the selected size option is included in the page.),
wherein Tipograph further teaches that the preset triggering condition comprises: the processing record information is an operation record for reflecting a preset processing of the target object; or the preset triggering condition comprises: the processing record information is an operation record for reflecting a preset processing of the target object; and a time interval between a time instant of generation of the processing record information and a current time instant is less than or equal to a set time threshold (Tipograph: “The presence or absence of such interactive objects can vary as a shopper interacts with the curated destination environment. For example, when user clicks “Add to Cart,” and a shopping cart is instantiated, and an associated item or items is placed into that shopping cart. Once the item or items are added to the shopping cart, one or more new interactive objects (e.g., a “Checkout” or “View Cart” button) can be rendered within the curated destination environment, thus allowing user to navigate to and view their shopping cart.” Col. 17, lines 30-50– See also Figure 10: “once an item has been added to the remote shopping cart, the user can be presented with user-selectable options to “Keep Shopping” or “Checkout Now.”” Col. 37, lines 45-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tipograph with Perera for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Perera/Tipograph teach the interaction method according to claim 2, further comprising:
in response to a selection operation on the operation guidance information, presenting the target object associated page; or in response to a selection operation on the target option, presenting a successive page; if the successive page is not the target object associated page, using the successive page as the target page, and continuing to perform the step of presenting operation guidance information in the target page if processing record information of a target object by a user satisfies a preset triggering condition, until the successive page is the target object associated page (Perera: “The interactive video includes a cart GUI element 224 that corresponds to a shopping cart integrated into video 202.” [0045] – “The interactive video allows the user to access shopping cart 226 to view or edit a list of products 220 added to shopping cart 226. …The user may proceed to checkout process from the shopping cart 226, e.g., using GUI element 222.” [0046] – “a checkout process, which includes inputting payment or shipping information and completing a transaction, is performed outside of the interactive video, e.g., in a webpage associated with an online store of the merchant. The checkout GUI 224 corresponds to a checkout webpage associated with the online store of the merchant.” [0047] – See Figures 2E-2F, where the screen switches to displaying the shopping bag and checkout pages in response to user interaction with elements 224 and 222.).
Regarding Claim 6, Perera/Tipograph teach the interaction method according to claim 2, further comprising: in response to a selection operation on the operation guidance information, or in response to a selection operation on the target option, presenting the successive page (Perera: “The interactive video includes a cart GUI element 224 that corresponds to a shopping cart integrated into video 202.” [0045] – “The interactive video allows the user to access shopping cart 226 to view or edit a list of products 220 added to shopping cart 226. …The user may proceed to checkout process from the shopping cart 226, e.g., using GUI element 222.” [0046] – “a checkout process, which includes inputting payment or shipping information and completing a transaction, is performed outside of the interactive video, e.g., in a webpage associated with an online store of the merchant. The checkout GUI 224 corresponds to a checkout webpage associated with the online store of the merchant.” [0047] – See Figures 2E-2F, where the screen switches to displaying the shopping bag and checkout pages in response to user interaction with elements 224 and 222.);
if the successive page is not the target object associated page, using the successive page as the target page, and continuing to perform the step of presenting operation guidance information in the target page if processing record information of a target object by a user satisfies a preset triggering condition, until the successive page is the target object associated page (Perera: “The interactive video includes a cart GUI element 224 that corresponds to a shopping cart integrated into video 202.” [0045] – “The interactive video allows the user to access shopping cart 226 to view or edit a list of products 220 added to shopping cart 226. …The user may proceed to checkout process from the shopping cart 226, e.g., using GUI element 222.” [0046] – “a checkout process, which includes inputting payment or shipping information and completing a transaction, is performed outside of the interactive video, e.g., in a webpage associated with an online store of the merchant. The checkout GUI 224 corresponds to a checkout webpage associated with the online store of the merchant.” [0047] – See Figures 2E-2F, where the screen switches to displaying the shopping bag and checkout pages in response to user interaction with elements 224 and 222. – “ the user may add a product to the shopping cart without leaving, exiting, or otherwise being navigated away (e.g., to another website or application) from video 202.” [0044]).
Regarding Claim 7, Perera/Tipograph teach the interaction method according to claim 1,
wherein the target page is used for playing a target video (Perera: “FIG. 2B shows a screenshot of the interactive video presenting product information of a product, in accordance with one or more embodiments. The interactive video presents product information 210 related to content, such as product 208 (e.g., a woman's top) presented in video 202” [0043]);
while Tipograph further teaches that the presenting operation guidance information in the target page [in response to] processing record information of a target object by a user satisfy[ying] a preset triggering condition comprises: if processing record information of a target object by a user satisfies a preset triggering condition and a play progress of the target video is greater than or equal to a set progress threshold, presenting operation guidance information in the target page (Tipograph: “ A product selection is received at the host server during playback of the video and in response to a user interaction with the video (e.g., a haptic input or a selection of an “Add to Cart” button). Normalized product data associated with the product selection is identified, and a message including the identified normalized product data is sent to the remote server to cause instantiation of a software shopping cart while the video playback continues” Col. 1, lines 40-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tipograph with Perera for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Perera/Tipograph teach the interaction method according to claim 1, wherein if at least two pieces of the processing record information satisfy a preset triggering condition, the method further comprises:
determining the operation guidance information corresponding to each processing record information respectively (Perera: “The interactive video includes a cart GUI element 224 that corresponds to a shopping cart integrated into video 202. The cart GUI element 224 may also indicate a number of products added to the shopping cart.” [0045] – “The user may add a product, e.g., product 220, to a shopping cart integrated in video 202. For example, the user may add the product 220 to the shopping cart using GUI element 218 from product information 216.” [0044]);
the presenting operation guidance information in the target page comprises:
arranging each operation guidance information to form an operation guidance queue; the shorter a time interval between a time instant of generation of the processing record information and a current time instant being, the more forward the operation guidance information corresponding to the processing record information being arranged in the operation guidance queue; presenting, in the target page, operation guidance information in the first place in the operation guidance queue; or presenting, in the target page, each operation guidance information in the operation guidance queue in sequence according to an order of each operation guidance information arranged in the operation guidance queue (Perera: “The interactive video includes a cart GUI element 224 that corresponds to a shopping cart integrated into video 202. The cart GUI element 224 may also indicate a number of products added to the shopping cart.” [0045] – “The user may add a product, e.g., product 220, to a shopping cart integrated in video 202. For example, the user may add the product 220 to the shopping cart using GUI element 218 from product information 216.” [0044] – See Figures 2B-2D, where the cart icon is incremented as items are added during playback.).
Regarding Claims 9-11 and 13-16, the limitations of claims 9-11 and 13-16 are closely parallel to the limitations of claims 1-3 and 5-8, with the additional limitation of an electronic device comprising: one or more processors; a storage apparatus for storing one or more programs; the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to carry out a method (Perera: [0091-0093]), and are rejected on the same basis.
Regarding Claims 17-19, the limitations of claims 17-19 are closely parallel to the limitations of claims 1-3, with the additional limitation of a non-transient computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the program, when executed by a processor, carries out a method (Perera: [0091-0093]), and are rejected on the same basis.
Claims 4, 12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perera, in view of Tipograph, and further in view of Kandylas et al (US 20170249384 A1), hereinafter Kandylas.
Regarding claim 4, Perera/Tipograph discloses the interaction method according to claim 1,
wherein a presentation style of the operation guidance information comprises a first presentation style and a second presentation style; the operation guidance information in the first presentation style comprises an image of the target object and text description information; the operation guidance information in the second presentation style comprises a mark icon (Perera: “The interactive video includes a cart GUI element 224 that corresponds to a shopping cart integrated into video 202” [0045] – “The interactive video allows the user to access shopping cart 226 to view or edit a list of products 220 added to shopping cart 226.” [0046] – See Figures 2D-E, in which the icon is presented in two different styles, one a small icon, the other a text & image description of each product.);
if at least two pieces of the processing record information satisfy the preset triggering condition, the operation guidance information in the first presentation style comprises images of the target object associated with all the processing record information (Perera: “The interactive video allows the user to access shopping cart 226 to view or edit a list of products 220 added to shopping cart 226.” [0046] – See Figure 2E, in which each of the plurality of interacted items are presented with text & image.);
wherein Tipograph further teaches that the presenting operation guidance information in the target page if processing record information of a target object by a user satisfies a preset triggering condition, comprises: if the processing record information of the target object by the user satisfies the preset triggering condition, presenting the operation guidance information in the first presentation style (Tipograph: “The presence or absence of such interactive objects can vary as a shopper interacts with the curated destination environment. For example, when user clicks “Add to Cart,” and a shopping cart is instantiated, and an associated item or items is placed into that shopping cart. Once the item or items are added to the shopping cart, one or more new interactive objects (e.g., a “Checkout” or “View Cart” button) can be rendered within the curated destination environment, thus allowing user to navigate to and view their shopping cart.” Col. 17, lines 30-50– See also Figure 10: “once an item has been added to the remote shopping cart, the user can be presented with user-selectable options to “Keep Shopping” or “Checkout Now.”” Col. 37, lines 45-50),
but does not specifically teach that if a presentation duration of the operation guidance information in the first presentation style reaches a presentation duration threshold and no triggering operation on the operation guidance information by the user is detected within a time period in which the operation guidance information is presented in the first presentation style, presenting the operation guidance information in the second presentation style.
However, Kandylas teaches content-presentation interfaces [Abstract], including:
if a presentation duration of the operation guidance information in the first presentation style reaches a presentation duration threshold and no triggering operation on the operation guidance information by the user is detected within a time period in which the operation guidance information is presented in the first presentation style, presenting the operation guidance information in the second presentation style (Kandylas: “The comment-summary interface 450 is shown beneath the comments, but could be located off to the side or as a pop-up window … upon the expiration of a period of time without a user interaction, the comment summary can disappear or be minimized to an icon in a notification panel or elsewhere on the user interface. Upon clicking the icon, the comment summary can reappear.” [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Perera/Tipograph would continue to teach wherein a presentation style of the operation guidance information comprises a first presentation style and a second presentation style, except that now it would also teach that if a presentation duration of the operation guidance information in the first presentation style reaches a presentation duration threshold and no triggering operation on the operation guidance information by the user is detected within a time period in which the operation guidance information is presented in the first presentation style, presenting the operation guidance information in the second presentation style, according to the teachings of Kandylas. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved ability to help the user find information of interest to them (Kandylas: [0003]).
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations of claim 12 are closely parallel to the limitations of claim 4, and are rejected on the same basis.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations of claim 20 are closely parallel to the limitations of claim 4, and are rejected on the same basis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejection – 35 §USC 101
Applicant argues that claim 1 “reflects the improved technique for improving navigation within an application described in the Specification and therefore integrates any alleged abstract idea into the practical application of improving navigation within an application.” Applicant argues that this improvement occurs “by guiding the user to use the application based on the user’s historical behavior,” and points to the Specification which recites that the system “can associate a teaching process of guiding the user to use the application with its historical behavior, improving the user experience.”
Examiner disagrees. The argued ability to present guidance information based on a user action that has been taken (i.e. a historical action, one that has occurred) and switch to another page for a user, is part of the abstract idea itself. Rather than improving the navigation within a software application, this is at best a business improvement rooted solely in the abstract idea. The additional elements, rather than integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. Rather than improving the navigation of an application’s interfaces, the claims merely provide a general linking between computer technology and the concept of guiding a user from one page to another when a certain action has occurred.
Claim Rejection – 35 §§USC 102 & 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Andrews et al (US 20090276805 A1) teaches a video presentation page with interactive hotspots that provide access to purchase menus corresponding to products in the video.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS JOSEPH SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9736. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8-5 PT.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov.
Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights