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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on July 23, 2024, November 19, 2024, and April 1, 2025 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609, and therefore have been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “User Interface System for Previewing and Reserving Pre-release Media Content”
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–15, and 19–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0248113 A1 (“Leffert”).
Claim 1
Leffert discloses:
A media interaction method, comprising:
Reference is made to FIGS. 3A and 3B, which illustrate process 300 (and a subprocess thereof). See Leffert ¶ 45.
displaying, in a first user interface, information about media content to be disclosed
In steps 302–304, a user accesses and interacts with an on-line media store. Leffert ¶ 45. “FIG. 2B illustrates a media store content window 250 that is produced by an on-line media store” and “includes a bundle information area 252.” Leffert ¶ 42. “The bundle information area 252 includes bundle descriptive information 254,” such as the names of the bundle and its artist, the price of the bundle. Leffert ¶ 42. At this stage, tracks associated with the bundle may also be displayed in a track listing area 262.
and a first interaction element used for reserving the media content;
The bundle information area 252 also includes “a pre-order button 258.” Leffert ¶ 42.
and presenting a second user interface in response to selection of the first interaction element,
The Examiner observes that this application uses the words “first” and “second” user interface very broadly, including embodiments where the second user interface is the same user interface as the first user interface, but merely updated to reflect the result of the first interaction. This interpretation is reasonable because it is exactly what is shown in FIGS. 3A and 3C:
[AltContent: textbox (“page 330 may be considered as an example of the second user interface” [0058])][AltContent: textbox (“the first user interface may include the first page … page 310 shown in FIG. 3A is an example of the first page” [0050]–[0051])]Leffert likewise discloses that selecting the “pre-order” control (step 306) causes the system to record the pre-order at step 318, and then “repeat the operation 304 and subsequent operations so that additional interaction 304 with the on-line media store is permitted.” Leffert ¶ 47. Accordingly, the media store content window 250 is once again displayed as instructed by step 304, but with updated information to reflect modifications to the bundle caused by the media store providing the customer with an early release from the bundle in exchange for the pre-order: For example, “the purchase price for the modified bundle is adjusted 362” so that “the registered user does not have to pay twice for the same media item.” Leffert ¶ 51.
wherein the second user interface is at least displayed with: disclosure time information of the media content;
Returning to FIG. 2B, the bundle information area 252 includes “release information 256” that “indicates an expected release date.” Leffert ¶ 42.
and a list of media items associated with the media content,
“The media store content window 250 also includes a track listing area 262. The track listing area 262 lists the tracks that are associated with the bundle of media items.” Leffert ¶ 43.
wherein a media item that has been at least partially disclosed and a media item that has not been disclosed are displayed in different visual styles.
“As shown in FIG. 2B, the track listing area 262 shows the third track 264 being highlighted,” and “a ‘Buy Song’ button 266 is depicted in the track listing area 262 indicating that the song can be bought from the on-line media store for price (e.g., $0.99),” unlike the rest of the album. Leffert ¶ 43.
Claim 2
Leffert discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein the disclosure time information comprises at least one of the following: disclosure time of the media content; or a countdown to the disclosure time.
“The bundle release information 256 indicates an expected release date.” Leffert ¶ 42.
Claim 3
Leffert discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first user interface comprises at least one of the following:
a first page dedicated to disclosure of the media content, wherein at least the following are displayed in the first page: first graphics and text information about the media content, the first interaction element, the disclosure time information, and the list;
As shown in FIG. 2B, media store content window 250 currently displays “bundle descriptive information 254, bundle release information 256, and a pre-order button 258,” Leffert ¶ 42, as well as “a track listing area 262.” Leffert ¶ 43.
or a second page in a feed flow and used to preview the media content, wherein second graphics and text information about the media content and the first interaction element are displayed in the second page.
Claim 3 says that the first user interface comprises only “at least one of” the first page or the second page. By disclosing the first page, Leffert does not need to also disclose the second page in order to anticipate the claim.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites two elements: “the method according to claim 3,” together with additional details for one of the two alternative pages from claim 3. However, claim 3 only requires “at least one of” the first page or the second page to be displayed, and this claim incorporates all of the elements of claim 3 by reference. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(d). Since Leffert discloses the first page, Leffert does not need to further disclose the second page in order to anticipate the claims. And since Leffert does not need to disclose the second page to anticipate the claims, Leffert also does need to disclose the further details about the second page in claim 5 in order to anticipate claim 5. Leffert anticipates claim 5 by disclosing claim 5’s only required element: “[t]he method of claim 3.”
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites two elements: “the method according to claim 3,” together with additional details for one of the two alternative pages from claim 3. However, claim 3 only requires “at least one of” the first page or the second page to be displayed, and this claim incorporates all of the elements of claim 3 by reference. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(d). Since Leffert discloses the first page, Leffert does not need to further disclose the second page in order to anticipate the claims. And since Leffert does not need to disclose the second page to anticipate the claims, Leffert also does need to disclose the further details about the second page in claim 6 in order to anticipate claim 6. Leffert anticipates claim 6 by disclosing claim 6’s only required element: “[t]he method of claim 3.”
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites two elements: “the method according to claim 3,” together with additional details for one of the two alternative pages from claim 3. However, claim 3 only requires “at least one of” the first page or the second page to be displayed, and this claim incorporates all of the elements of claim 3 by reference. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(d). Since Leffert discloses the first page, Leffert does not need to further disclose the second page in order to anticipate the claims. And since Leffert does not need to disclose the second page to anticipate the claims, Leffert also does need to disclose the further details about the second page in claim 7 in order to anticipate claim 7. Leffert anticipates claim 7 by disclosing claim 7’s only required element: “[t]he method of claim 3.”
Separately, Leffert also does not need to disclose the elements of claim 7 because the elements of claim 7 are all contingent upon the unmet condition precedent of “the selection of the first interaction element.” Claim 7 incorporates each and every element of its ancestor claims, and “selection of the first interaction element” is always recited as a condition precedent, not an affirmative step. That is, claims 1, 3, and 7 each recite what happens if the first interaction element is selected, but never recite a step requiring that the first interaction element be selected. “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 § 2111.04 (subsection II.).
Accordingly, for either reason, Leffert anticipates claim 7.
Claim 8
Leffert discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
presenting a fourth page associated with the media content via a media playing application for playing the media content, wherein the information about the media content is displayed in the fourth page; and in response to selection of the information about the media content, presenting the first user interface via the media playing application.
“Once the user has accessed 302 the on-line media store, the user can interact 304 with the on-line media store. The interaction 304 with the on-line media store can, for example, involve searching, browsing, displaying, previewing, purchasing, pre-ordering, and/or organizing digital media assets. The access 302 and the interaction 304 can be facilitated by a media management application operating on a client machine, such as the client machine 104 illustrated in FIG. 1.” Leffert ¶ 45. As shown in FIG. 2B, the user has reached area 252 by performing the searching and/or browsing functions disclosed for step 304.
Claim 10
Leffert discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
presenting a third user interface in response to the media content being disclosed, wherein at least a third interaction element is displayed in the third user interface;
“When the decision 508 determines that there are one or more available pre-ordered items for the user, the available pre-ordered items are displayed 510 for the user. For example, a dialog box can be presented on a display screen that the user is able to view. The dialog box can allow the user to initiate download of the one or more available pre-ordered items.” Leffert ¶ 58.
and presenting a fourth user interface associated with the media content in response to selection of the third interaction element.
“When the decision 512 determines that the user does desired to download one or more of the available pre-ordered items, purchase and download of one or more of the available pre-ordered items is performed 514,” and then “additional interaction 516 with the on-line media store can be provided for the user.” Leffert ¶ 59.
Claim 11
Leffert discloses the method according to claim 10,
wherein the third interaction element is displayed in response to a time duration for which the third user interface is presented exceeding a predetermined duration.
“[T]o be available . . . the release date for such digital media assets must not be in the future.” Leffert ¶ 53.
Claim 12
Leffert discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
in response to selection of the first interaction element, adding the information about the media content to a media library;
At step 318 of method 300, responsive to receiving the pre order request from a logged-in user, “the pre-order can be recorded such that it is associated with the registered user (e.g., associated with the user account for the registered user).” Leffert ¶ 47.
and in response to a user input for displaying the media library, enabling the media content to be disclosed to be displayed prior to one or more pieces of disclosed media content.
“Additionally, a pre-order management page can be made available to a user. The pre-order management page can allow the user to cancel or otherwise manage any of the pre-orders that they may have made. For example, the pre-order management page could display a list of pending pre-orders that are associated with the user (e.g., associated with a user's account with the on-line media store).” Leffert ¶ 60.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites two elements: “the method according to claim 1,” together with a contingent limitation (“displaying the information about the media content at the top of a media library”) whose condition precedent (“in response to the media content being disclosed”) is not required by claims 1 or 13. In other words, claim 13 says what happens if the media content is disclosed, but does not recite a step that actually requires the media content to be disclosed (e.g., “disclosing the media content”).
“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 § 2111.04 (subsection II.). Accordingly, since claim 13 does not require the media content to be disclosed, the contingency of “displaying the information about the media content at the top of a media library” does not need to be performed for the prior art to anticipate the invention of claim 13. The prior art need only disclose the required elements of claim 13, and the only required element of claim 13 is “the method according to claim 1,” which Leffert anticipates for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites two elements: “the method according to claim 13,” together with additional steps that only occur “in response to the media content being disclosed.” However, ancestor claims 13 and 1 do not require the media content to be disclosed, meaning the additional steps recited in claim 14 are not required either. Since they are not required, the prior art does not need to disclose them in order to anticipate the claim. Accordingly, claim 14 is anticipated because the prior art discloses all of the required base elements that claim 14 incorporates by reference.
Claim 15
Leffert discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
in response to the media content being disclosed, displaying, in the second user interface, a fourth interaction element prompting to view the information about the media content;
The additional elements of claim 13 are optional under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, because claim 13 is a method claim and all of its additional steps are contingent upon an unmet condition precedent. See MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.).
Nevertheless, Leffert discloses this optional element by disclosing that in response to pre-ordered items becoming available (step 508 of FIG. 5), “a dialog box can be presented on a display screen that the user is able to view,” which “can allow the user to initiate download of the one or more available pre-ordered items.” Leffert ¶ 58.
and presenting a fourth user interface associated with the media content in response to selection of the fourth interaction element.
“When the decision 512 determines that the user does desired to download one or more of the available pre-ordered items, purchase and download of one or more of the available pre-ordered items is performed 514,” and then “additional interaction 516 with the on-line media store can be provided for the user.” Leffert ¶ 59.
Claims 19–22
Leffert discloses an electronic device, comprising: at least one processing unit; and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory is coupled to the at least one processing unit and stores an instruction executed by the at least one processing unit, and the instruction, when executed by the at least one processing unit, causes the electronic device to perform a media interaction method. See Leffert ¶¶ 11, 14, 15, and 72.
Claims 19–22 further recite that the media interaction method performed by the electronic device is the same method as recited in claims 1 and 10–12, and Leffert likewise discloses each one of those methods for the reasons given in the rejections of claims 1 and 10–12, above. Accordingly, Leffert anticipates claims 19–22.
Claim 23
Claim 23 recites a broader (but fully encompassing) version of the memory component of claim 19, including all of the instructions stored thereon. Accordingly, claim 23 is rejected over all of the findings and rationale provided in the rejection of claim 19.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Leffert as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0188731 A1 (“Dai”).
Claim 4
Leffert teaches the method according to claim 3, further comprising:
displaying the information about the media content in a third page
“Once the user has accessed 302 the on-line media store, the user can interact 304 with the on-line media store. The interaction 304 with the on-line media store can, for example, involve searching . . . digital media assets.” Leffert ¶ 45.
This at least suggests that prior to reaching area 252 shown in FIG. 2B, the user may be in a different part of the media player application 250 that involves searching for the artist (i.e., the claimed third page), and eventually reaching the album page shown in FIG. 2B.
Furthermore, Dai explicitly teaches:
displaying the information about the media content in a third page associated with an author of the media content;
On a search results page, “user device 200 generates user selectable links 234, 236 associated with each displayed search result 230 based on the received search results 220 (e.g., links 234, 236 of FIG. 1).” Dai ¶ 75. The search results may include “data related to movies, television programs, music, and restaurants.” Dai ¶ 59. Each search result also comprises application access mechanisms 202, one of which “may include references to musical artists, songs, and albums, for example.” Dai ¶ 79.
and presenting the first page in response to selection of the information about the media content.
“[A]n application access mechanism 202a for an internet media player application can include data that causes the user device 200 to launch the internet media player application and stream media from the Internet. In such examples, the internet media player application may be set in a state that displays information regarding the media (e.g., music) being streamed, such as a song name, an artist, or an album name.” Dai ¶ 78.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Leffert’s search interactions with the searching mechanism taught by Dai. The rationale for this conclusion is that “the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.” MPEP § 2143 (subsection (I.)(B.)). Consistent with the guidance at MPEP § 2143 (subsection (I.)(B.)), the evidence for the factual findings in support of this conclusion are as follows:
(1) The prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components. The evidence for this finding is provided in the rejection of claims 1 and 4 above, where each claim element is mapped to a respective disclosure from Leffert.
(2) The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The evidence for this finding is provided in the second half of this rejection, where the substituted components and their functions from Dai are mapped to respective elements of the claim.
(3) One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, because the original element and substituted element both perform the same function—both concern search results pages that link to other parts of an application.
In view of these findings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Leffert’s search interactions with the searching mechanism taught by Dai.
Claim 9
Leffert teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
presenting a fifth page
“Once the user has accessed 302 the on-line media store, the user can interact 304 with the on-line media store. The interaction 304 with the on-line media store can, for example, involve searching . . . digital media assets.” Leffert ¶ 45.
This at least suggests that prior to reaching area 252 shown in FIG. 2B, the user may be in a different part of the media player application 250 that involves searching for the artist (i.e., the claimed third page), and eventually reaching the album page shown in FIG. 2B.
Furthermore, Dai explicitly teaches a method comprising:
presenting a fifth page via another application different from a media playing application for playing the media content, wherein the information about the media content is displayed in the fifth page;
On a search results page in a searching application, “user device 200 generates user selectable links 234, 236 associated with each displayed search result 230 based on the received search results 220 (e.g., links 234, 236 of FIG. 1).” Dai ¶ 75. The search results may include “data related to movies, television programs, music, and restaurants.” Dai ¶ 59. Each search result also comprises application access mechanisms 202, one of which “may include references to musical artists, songs, and albums, for example.” Dai ¶ 79.
and in response to selection of the information about the media content, presenting the first user interface via the media playing application.
“[A]n application access mechanism 202a for an internet media player application can include data that causes the user device 200 to launch the internet media player application and stream media from the Internet. In such examples, the internet media player application may be set in a state that displays information regarding the media (e.g., music) being streamed, such as a song name, an artist, or an album name.” Dai ¶ 78.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Leffert’s search interactions with the searching mechanism taught by Dai. The rationale for this conclusion is that “the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.” MPEP § 2143 (subsection (I.)(B.)). Consistent with the guidance at MPEP § 2143 (subsection (I.)(B.)), the evidence for the factual findings in support of this conclusion are as follows:
(1) The prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components. The evidence for this finding is provided in the rejection of claims 1 and 4 above, where each claim element is mapped to a respective disclosure from Leffert.
(2) The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The evidence for this finding is provided in the second half of this rejection, where the substituted components and their functions from Dai are mapped to respective elements of the claim.
(3) One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, because the original element and substituted element both perform the same function—both concern search results pages that link to other parts of an application.
In view of these findings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Leffert’s search interactions with the searching mechanism taught by Dai.
Other Prior Art
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0098243 A1, paragraphs 32–33, disclose a method that appears to anticipate at least claims 1, 2, 19, and 23, if not more.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0182426 A1 discloses a technique that would have been obvious to combine with Leffert (or other prior art), resulting in the method of claims 13 and 14 (had their limitations been recited in a non-optional manner).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights