DETAILED ACTION
This Action is responsive to Applicant’s Amendments filed October 3, 2025.
Please note, claims 51-70 remain pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 nonobviousness.
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(s) 51-54, 57-58, 61-64, 67-68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene (US Pub. No. 2014/0101125) further in view of Byron et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0350406) and Leslie et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0262444)
Regarding claim 51, Greene teaches a method comprising:
‘identifying first query results corresponding to a first query and second query results corresponding to a second query, wherein the first and the second query are separate queries and unrelated to each other’ as allowing a user to enter two distinct, separate search terms and execute two simultaneous, real-time searches in a side-by-side cohesive display (¶0037)
‘assigning, at a media device, a first display area to the first query results and a second display area to the second query results’ as a first display window to display first query results and a second display window to display second query results (¶0037, Fig. 3, 21)
‘generating, for simultaneous display at the media device, first media identifiers corresponding to the first query results at the first display area and second media identifiers corresponding to the second query results at the second display area, wherein the first media identifiers at the first display area are independently navigable from the second media identifiers at the second display area, such that a first input to scroll through the first display area affects only displacement of the first query results displayed in the first display area and does not affect the second query results displayed in the second display area, and wherein the first media identifiers are ordered based on the interaction’ as two independent set of search results displayed simultaneously side by side and adding scrollbars to one or more iframes to facilitate convenient scrolling through respective display areas of respective search results (¶0038, 63, 56; Fig. 3,4, 21)
Greene fails to explicitly teach:
‘detecting, at the media device, an interaction indicative of modifying an order of the first query results, wherein the interaction comprises a dragging motion that modifies one or more modifiable indicators’
Bryron teaches:
‘wherein the first query and the second query are separate queries and unrelated to each other’ as a new user query being unrelated to a current user query (¶0067, 35)
‘detecting, at the media device, an interaction indicative of modifying an order of the first query results, wherein the interaction comprises a dragging motion that modifies one or more modifiable indicators’ as sliding answers to desired locations, thereby indicating rating or ranking changes to the answers (¶0069)
Leslie teaches:
‘detecting, at the media device, an interaction indicative of modifying an order of the first query results’ as a sort toolbar to indicate a sorting method for search results (¶0081, 39, Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Byron’s would have allowed Greene’s to a more relevant set of search results to a user (¶0005). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Leslie’s would have allowed Greene’s to more efficiently present search results (¶0005)
Regarding claim 52, Leslie teaches wherein detecting, at the media device, the interaction indicative of modifying the order of the first query results comprises:
‘determining that the interaction modifies one or more modifiable indicators corresponding to one or more options for modifying the order of the first query results’ as modifying a plurality of scores to change values and modify the search results and thus modifying the order of the search results (¶0059)
‘in response to determining that the interaction modifies the one or more modifiable indicators:
‘determining, based on the interaction, a modification of the one or more modifiable’ as determine a range specified by the user modifying the range (¶0059)
‘determining the order of the first query results based on the modification of one or more modifiable indicators’ (¶0066-68)
Regarding claim 53, Leslie teaches ‘wherein the one or more modifiable indicators comprises an interactive slider interface element, and the a dragging motion that modifies the interactive slider interface element’ as slider user interface controls that a user can use to change a value by dragging (¶0059-60)
Regarding claim 54, Leslie teaches ‘wherein generating, for display at the media device, the first media identifiers at the first display area and the second media identifiers at the second display area comprises generating, for display at the media device, a first interactive carousel interface element for the first media identifiers and a second interactive carousel interface element for the second media identifiers’ as presenting the result cards in carousels (¶0034)
Regarding claim 57, Greene teaches ‘wherein generating, for display at the media device, the first media identifiers corresponding to the first query results at the first display area and the second media identifiers corresponding to the second query results at the second display area comprises generating, for display at the media device, a graphic user interface comprising the first display area and the second display area’ as presenting to a user a first display window to display first query results and a second display window to display second query results (¶0037, Fig. 3, 21)
Regarding claim 58, Byron teaches ‘further comprising storing the first query and the second query’ (¶0062)
Regarding claim 61, Greene teaches a system comprising:
‘display circuitry configured to display an interface’ (¶0035-40, Fig. 3)
‘control circuitry configured to:
identify first query results corresponding to a first query and second query results corresponding to a second query, wherein the first and the second query are separate queries and unrelated to each other’ as allowing a user to enter two distinct, separate search terms and execute two simultaneous, real-time searches in a side-by-side cohesive display (¶0037)
‘assign, at a media device, a first display area to the first query results and a second display area to the second query results’ as a first display window to display first query results and a second display window to display second query results (¶0037, Fig. 3, 21)
‘generate, for simultaneous display at the media device, first media identifiers corresponding to the first query results at the first display area and second media identifiers corresponding to the second query results at the second display area, wherein the first media identifiers at the first display area are independently navigable from the second media identifiers at the second display area, such that a first input to scroll through the first display area affects only displacement of the first query results displayed in the first display area and does not affect the second query results displayed in the second display area, and wherein the first media identifiers are ordered based on the interaction’ as two independent set of search results displayed simultaneously side by side and adding scrollbars to one or more iframes to facilitate convenient scrolling through respective display areas of respective search results (¶0038, 63, 56; Fig. 3,4, 21)
Greene fails to explicitly teach:
‘detecting, at the media device, an interaction indicative of modifying an order of the first query results, wherein the interaction comprises a dragging motion that modifies one or more modifiable indicators’
Byron teaches:
‘wherein the first query and the second query are separate queries and unrelated to each other’ as a new user query being unrelated to a current user query (¶0067, 35)
‘detect, at the media device, an interaction indicative of modifying an order of the first query results, wherein the interaction comprises a dragging motion that modifies one or more modifiable indicators’ as sliding answers to desired locations, thereby indicating rating or ranking changes to the answers (¶0069)
Leslie teaches:
‘detect, at the media device, an interaction indicative of modifying an order of the first query results’ as a sort toolbar to indicate a sorting method for search results (¶0081, 39, Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Byron’s would have allowed Greene’s to a more relevant set of search results to a user (¶0005). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Leslie’s would have allowed Greene’s to more efficiently present search results (¶0005)
Regarding claim 62, Leslie teaches wherein the control circuitry, when detecting, at the media device, the interaction indicative of modifying the order of the first query results, is configured to:
‘determine that the interaction modifies one or more modifiable indicators corresponding to one or more options for modifying the order of the first query results’ as modifying a plurality of scores to change values and modify the search results and thus modifying the order of the search results (¶0059)
‘in response to determining that the interaction modifies the one or more modifiable indicators:
determine, based on the interaction, a modification of the one or more modifiable indicators’ as determine a range specified by the user modifying the range (¶0059)
‘determine the order of the first query results based on the modification of one or more modifiable indicators’ (¶0066-68)
Regarding claim 63, Leslie teaches ‘wherein the one or more modifiable indicators comprises an interactive slider interface element, and the dragging motion modifies the interactive slider interface element’ as slider user interface controls that a user can use to change a value by dragging (¶0059-60)
Regarding claim 64, Leslie teaches ‘wherein the control circuitry, when generating, for display at the media device via the display circuitry, the first media identifiers at the first display area and the second media identifiers at the second display area, is configured to generate, for display at the media device, a first interactive carousel interface element for the first media identifiers and a second interactive carousel interface element for the second media identifiers’ as presenting the result cards in carousels (¶0034)
Regarding claim 67, Greene teaches ‘wherein the control circuitry, when generating, for display at the media device via the display circuitry, the first media identifiers corresponding to the first query results at the first display area and the second media identifiers corresponding to the second query results at the second display area, is configured to generate, for display at the media device, a graphic user interface comprising the first display area and the second display area’ as presenting to a user a first display window to display first query results and a second display window to display second query results (¶0037, Fig. 3, 21)
Regarding claim 68, Byron teaches ‘wherein the control circuitry is further configured to store the first query and the second query’ (¶0062)
Claim(s) 55, 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene (US Pub. No. 2014/0101125) Byron et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0350406) Leslie et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0262444) further in view of Bortner et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0175026)
Regarding claim 55, Greene fails to explicitly teach ‘wherein the first interactive carousel interface element is a first carousel type, and wherein the second interactive carousel interface element is a second carousel type.’
Bortner teaches ‘wherein the first interactive carousel interface element is a first carousel type, and wherein the second interactive carousel interface element is a second carousel type’ as a plurality of types of data displayed on the carousel (¶0029)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Bortner’s would have allowed Greene’s to better aggregate and organize data for presentation (¶0005)
Regarding claim 65, Greene fails to explicitly teach ‘wherein the first interactive carousel interface element is a first carousel type, and the second interactive carousel interface element is a second carousel type.’
Bortner teaches ‘wherein the first interactive carousel interface element is a first carousel type, and the second interactive carousel interface element is a second carousel type’ as a plurality of types of data displayed on the carousel (¶0029)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Bortner’s would have allowed Greene’s to better aggregate and organize data for presentation (¶0005)
Claim(s) 56, 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene (US Pub. No. 2014/0101125) Byron et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0350406) Leslie et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0262444) further in view of Webster et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0136286)
Regarding claim 56, Greene teaches ‘receiving an interaction comprising scrolling of the first media identifiers at the first display area’ as scrollbars to one or more iframes to facilitate convenient scrolling through respective display areas of respective search results (¶0038, 63, 56; Fig. 3,4, 21)
Greene fails to explicitly teach further comprising:
‘in response to determining that the interaction comprises scrolling past a last identifier of the first media identifiers displayed at the first display area, scrolling past the last identifier to a first identifier of the first media identifiers.’
Webster teaches:
‘receiving an interaction comprising scrolling of the first media identifiers at the first display area’ as scrolling a stack or list (¶0060)
‘in response to determining that the interaction comprises scrolling past a last identifier of the first media identifiers displayed at the first display area, scrolling past the last identifier to a first identifier of the first media identifiers’ as scrolling a stack or list such that after reaching the last item, scrolling is returned to the first item (¶0060)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Webster’s would have allowed Greene’s to provide an efficient way to manage content for the purpose of finding, sharing and viewing (¶0003)
Regarding claim 66, Greene teaches ‘receive an interaction comprising scrolling of the first media identifiers at the first display area’ as scrollbars to one or more iframes to facilitate convenient scrolling through respective display areas of respective search results (¶0038, 63, 56; Fig. 3,4, 21)
Greene fails to explicitly teach further comprising:
‘in response to determining that the interaction comprises scrolling past a last identifier of the first media identifiers displayed at the first display area, scrolling past the last identifier to a first identifier of the first media identifiers’
Webster teaches:
‘receive an interaction comprising scrolling of the first media identifiers at the first display area’as scrolling a stack or list (¶0060)
‘in response to determining that the interaction comprises scrolling past a last identifier of the first media identifiers displayed at the first display area, scrolling past the last identifier to a first identifier of the first media identifiers’ as scrolling a stack or list such that after reaching the last item, scrolling is returned to the first item (¶0060)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Webster’s would have allowed Greene’s to provide an efficient way to manage content for the purpose of finding, sharing and viewing (¶0003)
Claim(s) 59, 69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene (US Pub. No. 2014/0101125) Byron et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0350406) Leslie et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0262444) further in view of Patel et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0192137)
Regarding claim 59, Leslie teaches wherein identifying the first query results corresponding to the first query and the second query results corresponding to the second query comprises:
‘identifying the first query results by executing the first query against a database’ as a search query executed against a database (¶0040)
Greene and Leslie fail to explicitly teach:
‘identifying the second query results by executing an algorithm for media assets based on a media consumption history’
Patel teaches:
‘identifying the second query results by executing an algorithm for media assets based on a media consumption history’ (¶0038)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Webster’s would have allowed Greene and Leslie’s to better predict information that a user is looking for (¶0002)
Regarding claim 69, Leslie teaches wherein the control circuitry, when identifying the first query results corresponding to the first query and the second query results corresponding to the second query, is configured to:
‘identify the first query results by executing the first query against a database’ as a search query executed against a database (¶0040)
Greene and Leslie fail to explicitly teach:
‘identify the second query results by executing an algorithm for media assets based on a media consumption history’
Patel teaches:
‘identify the second query results by executing an algorithm for media assets based on a media consumption history’ (¶0038)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Webster’s would have allowed Greene and Leslie’s to better predict information that a user is looking for (¶0002)
Claim(s) 60, 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene (US Pub. No. 2014/0101125) Byron et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0350406) Leslie et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0262444) further in view of Selberg (US Pub. No. 2009/0063460)
Regarding claim 60, Greene fails to explicitly teach further comprising:
‘receiving an interaction indicative of moving the first query results to a third display area’
‘in response to receiving the interaction, assigning the first query results to the third display area’
Selberg teaches:
‘receiving an interaction indicative of moving the first query results to a third display area’ as receiving signals to highlight a set of search results (¶0026)
‘in response to receiving the interaction, assigning the first query results to the third display area’ as moving the set of search results to a prominent location on the display surface (¶0027)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Selberg’s would have allowed Greene’s to clearly present the best search results for a user (¶0003)
Regarding claim 70, Greene fails to explicitly teach further comprising:
‘receive an interaction indicative of moving the first query results to a third display area’
‘in response to receiving the interaction, assign the first query results to the third display area’
Selberg teaches:
‘receive an interaction indicative of moving the first query results to a third display area’ as receiving signals to highlight a set of search results (¶0026)
‘in response to receiving the interaction, assigning the first query results to the third display area’ as moving the set of search results to a prominent location on the display surface (¶0027)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Selberg’s would have allowed Greene’s to clearly present the best search results for a user (¶0003)
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraphs and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN OBERLY whose telephone number is (571)272-7025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-4pm MT.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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.
/VAN H OBERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166