DETAILED ACTION
Prosecution has been reopened in this application.
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 with respect to claim(s) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-15, 17, 18, 20-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the newly added amendment language “wherein the viewpoint content is a content with a number of comments greater than a first preset threshold obtained from another application associated with the application, and the comment contents are top comment contents with a number of comments greater than a second preset threshold” does not have written description support in the originally filed application. Specifically “top comments” and “a second preset threshold” does not appear to be disclosed or distinguished from a first preset threshold.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-15, 17, 18, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, The claim refers to a “trending event”, however the term “trending” is considered at most a relative term of degree with no clear definition and could also be considered to be based on the users personal opinion. In either interpretation the term “trending” adds no clear patentable weight, nor can it be used to differentiate any one event from another. Furthermore the trending event” is claimed as being “a multimedia content” that is “in the application”. It is unclear what the applicant considers to be a “trending event” verse any other “event” or “multimedia content”. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the claimed item “trending event” is interpreted to be any “multimedia content” as this is the only claimed description of a “trending event”, unless the term is clarified with a claim amendment explicitly defining how the term “trending” is intended to modify the term “event”.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim includes the limitation that the first trending event and the viewpoint are all in the claimed application, however the amended claim language contradictorily claims that “the viewpoint content is a content with a number of comments greater than a first preset threshold obtained from another application associated with the application”. It is unclear how the trending event, viewpoint and comments can both be claimed to be in the application but also be from another application and have comments greater than a threshold from another application. In the interest of compact prosecution paragraph [0048] of the specification is relied upon for interpretation of this apparently contradictory language, wherein it is disclosed that “other applications associated with application 1” can be “a web page of application 1”. Therefore, the claimed “another application” can reasonably be interpreted as being another page of the same application. Since the claimed “trending event” is shown in “an original page of the application”, another page of “the application” which includes comments meets the claim limitation of “another application associated with the application” based on the definition provided by applicant in paragraph [0048] of the present specification.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim includes “the trending event” in the last line of the claim: There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the preceding claim limitations include “a first trending event”. This limitation is also considered to render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a first trending event” and “the trending event” are intended to be the same event or different events. In the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation is interpreted as having been intended to be the same as the “first trending event”.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 6-15, 17, 18, 20-22, these claims include the same indefinite term “trending” as claim 1 and are rejected for the same rational given above, with respect to claim 1. Specifically independent claims 15 and 20 include the same deficiencies of claim 1, and all claims depending from claims 1, 15 or 20 also inherit the same deficiencies described with respect to claim 1, above. The term “trending event” is also given the same interpretation as given above, with respect to claim 1. These claims also inherit the deficiencies and interpretation related to the “another application”, as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-10, 13, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clediere (US Patent 11,533,286) in view of Kanter (US PGPub 2017/0017369).
Regarding claim 1, Clediere discloses a method for displaying a trending event in an application, comprising: playing, in an original page of the application, a multimedia content of a first trending event in the application (Content items, which are considered to be displayed trending events, are for example: emoji, image, video, article, link, etc. see at least col. 6 lines 31-36. Where the content item is shown is considered to be the claimed original page of the application.);
(Clediere discloses displaying a first comment thread, which is a viewpoint content about the first trending event, see at least the first comment by Sebastien in fig. 3. Which is in container 304, this is considered to be the first region of the first page. See also reproduced and annotated fig. 3, below. Note: while Clediere does not explicitly disclose that a sliding operation is used to go from displaying the content items, which are the displayed trending events, to displaying the first comment thread – it is clear that something causes a transition to displaying comment threads and Clediere also discloses using a swipe to transition between different comment threads, see at least col. 11, lines 2-12. Therefore, Clediere also teaches sliding operations as a means for changing pages in the application. However, since the teaching is not directly and explicitly disclosed, the claim limitation is line-through by the examiner),
and displaying comment contents about the first trending event with a scrolling effect in a second region of the first page (the comments about the first trending event in response to Sebastien’s viewpoint content are displayed in the second region of the first page; see fig. 3 comments by Jamie, Patrick, ect. See also reproduced and annotated fig. 3, below. Regarding the scrolling effect, see at least col. 9, lines 48-54, wherein Clediere discloses that the comment which is the viewpoint content is separated from the replies and sub-replies and the user can scroll through the replies while the comment remains at the top of the reply thread. This corresponds to the viewpoint comment by Sebastien in the first region staying in the first region, while the reply comments about the first trending event are displayed with a scrolling effect in the second region.)
PNG
media_image1.png
697
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the original page and the first page are both pages of the application (already addressed, above),
and the first region is different from the second region (see reproduced and annotated fig. 3 above, which shows that the first and second region are different regions of the same page),
wherein the viewpoint content is a content with a number of comments greater than a first preset threshold obtained from another application associated with the application (the viewpoint content is the comment in the first region, and the number of replies, or comments, is in the second region, see at least reproduced and annotated fig. 3, above. A comment thread can display a comment, or viewpoint content, based on a number of replies, or comments, exceeding a threshold value. See at least col. 7, lines 30-33. See also ranking activity or popularity, see at least col. 5 line 65 – col. 6, line 20. The applicant’s present specification defines the “another application” as possibility being a different page of the same application, Clediere teaches other pages of the application are used to create comments when a user clicks to respond: see at least col. 3 line 53 – col. 4 line 3. In the interest of compact prosecution, an alternative interpretation is considered and also disclosed by Clediere: that the comments are obtained from another application associated with the application in that different users using different pages of their own instant of the application write comments, and these instants of the application are different applications that are all associated. See at least col. 2 lines 45-58.)
and the comment contents are top comment contents with a number of comments greater than a second preset threshold (the top rely, or comment, is determined based on the number of likes which is a type of comment. The threshold is “more likes than other replies”; see at least col. 8 lines 22-25. See also ranking activity or popularity, see at least col. 5 line 65 – col. 6, line 20);
and in response to a second sliding operation performed on the content component (note: the alternative step of “in response to passing a present time period is not required to occur), switching, within the first region of the first page, to display another viewpoint content about the trending event in the content component. (a user can navigate to another comment thread, or viewpoint content, by using a swipe gesture; see at least col. 8 lines 35-37. See also fig. 3 where viewpoint contents about an event by Sebastien is shown. After switching Claire’s comment is shown in the first region, see at least fig. 4C)
Clediere does not explicitly disclose switching from an original page to a first page in response to receiving a first sliding operation performed on the multimedia content. Furthermore, Clediere doesn’t disclose how there is a transition between an original page and the first page. However, Clediere does teach using a swipe gesture to transition between viewpoint comments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the present application was filed, to have applied the disclosed method of swiping to transition between pages of viewpoint content (comment threads) in Clediere to also transition between other pages in the same application as it would be easier for users to use the same gesture for transitioning between pages.
While it is not necessary to address a step that is not required to happen, in the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation of switching displayed content in response to passing a preset time period is addressed as follows: This limitation is not explicitly disclosed by Clediere, but is taught in the analogous art of presenting online content by Kanter (see at least paragraphs [0008] and [0050] wherein it is taught that if a user has not interacted with displayed content for a threshold period of time, another content item is automatically presented). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the present application was filed, to have incorporated the time threshold before changing content pages, as taught by Kanter, into the invention disclosed by Clediere for the purpose of encouraging user interaction with the content as taught by Kanter (see at least paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Clediere/Kanter disclose the method according to claim 1, above. Clediere further discloses the method, wherein the displaying the viewpoint content about the first trending event comprises: displaying the viewpoint content about the first trending event in a form of a card. (See at least viewpoint content comment by Sebastien in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Clediere/Kanter disclose the method according to claim 1, above. Clediere further discloses the method, further comprising: displaying a second page of the application in response to receiving a trigger operation on the first region, wherein the second page is used to display all viewpoint contents about the first trending event. (See first region as defined in the reproduced and annotated fig. 3, above. In response to selecting the button “Back to Comments” in the first region the user returns to the comment thread, see at least fig. 4B, element 440 and col. 13 lines 1 – 11 where the function of the “Back to Comments” button is explained.
Regarding claim 7, Clediere/Kanter disclose the method according to claim 1, above. Clediere further discloses the method, wherein the viewpoint content about the trending event is displayed in form of text and/or picture. (See at least the text comments and picture shown in figs. 4B and 4C)
Regarding claim 8, Clediere/Kanter disclose the method according to claim 7, above. Clediere further discloses the method, wherein the displaying the viewpoint content about the first trending event comprises: (see at least figs. 3 and 4A-4C. Note: all limitations in this claim are listed in the alternative and therefore only one needs to be addressed in this rejection, however all are disclosed by Clediere)
displaying part of the text of the viewpoint content about the first trending event;
or displaying the text of the viewpoint content about the first trending event;
or displaying part of the picture of the viewpoint content about the first trending event;
or displaying the picture of the viewpoint content about the first trending event;
or displaying part of the text and part of the picture of the viewpoint content about the first trending event;
or displaying part of the text and the picture of the viewpoint content about the first trending event;
or displaying the text and part of the picture of the viewpoint content about the first trending event;
or displaying the text and the picture of the viewpoint content about the first trending event.
(The viewpoints contents are the comments on the multimedia content, for example comments by Sebastien and Claire, as discussed with respect to preceding claims and shown in figs. 3 and 4A-AC. These figures show text and pictures of the viewpoint content about the first trending event shown in various combinations of text and/or pictures.
Note that “part” means “a piece of the whole” and the claim does not preclude that all parts of the whole are shown, and therefore when a whole text comment is shown, all “parts” of that text is shown and therefore “part” of the text is shown as well. In that way when a whole picture is shown, part of that picture is also shown.
In the interest of compact prosecution, under the assumption that Applicant may have wanted to claim that “only part of the text is shown and not the whole text” or that “only part of the picture is shown and not the whole picture: Also note, Fig 4A shows that picture 420 is showing only part and not the whole of the picture. Furthermore, scrolling is a feature of the disclosed invention, see at least col. 9, lines 48-54, and therefore it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have applied the disclosed scrolling feature to any sufficiently large posts for the purpose of being able to read the text even when the text wouldn’t fit on the screen. A natural result of scrolling through content is that sometimes “only part of the text is shown and not the whole text”. This conclusion is also supported by Fig 4A, which shows only part of picture 420 (wherein the whole of fig. 420 can be seen in Fig. 4C) suggesting that scrolling is also already incorporated into the page of viewpoints (comments) shown in fig. 4A, which would then naturally result in not only pictures being shown only in part and not the whole, but text would also be sometimes shown only in part and not the whole.)
Regarding claim 9, Clediere/Kanter disclose the method according to claim 1, above. Clediere further discloses the method, further comprising: displaying a third page of the application in response to receiving a trigger operation on the second region, wherein the third page displays comment contents about the first trending event. (A user can navigate to another comment thread, or viewpoint content, either would be considered the claimed third page displaying comment contents about the first trending event, by using a swipe gesture; see at least col. 8 lines 35-49. Specifically, a user may, for example, swipe right on a comment thread. A comment thread is in the second region of the page, see reproduced and annotated fig. 3 above. Therefore, the swipe is the trigger operation on the second region.)
Regarding claim 10, Clediere/Kanter disclose the method according to claim 1, above. Clediere further discloses the method, further comprising: in response to receiving an input operation on the second region, inputting and displaying a comment content of a user about the first trending event in the second region. (see at least reproduced and annotated fig 3, above, where a reply input is shown in the bottom of the second region. With respect to fig. 4B, this reply input is identified as input field 452 and described in col. 13, lines 30-35. Therefore, in response to receiving an input operation on the second region via input field 452 a user’s comment content is inputted and therefore displayed in the second region).
Regarding claim 13, Clediere/Kanter disclose the method according to claim 1, above. Clediere further discloses the method, wherein the displaying the comment contents about the first trending event with the scrolling effect in the second region of the first page comprises (see rejection of claim 1, above):
when displaying one viewpoint content about the first trending event in the first region (see at least reproduced and annotated fig. 3, above, where view point content by Sebastien is shown in the first region),
displaying with the scrolling effect, in the second region of the first page, the comment contents about the first trending event related to the one viewpoint content about the first trending event. (Also shown in the reproduced and annotated fig. 3, above, are the reply comments that were made in response to Sebastien’s viewpoint content about the first trending event. Regarding the scrolling effect, see at least col. 9, lines 48-54, wherein Clediere discloses that the comment which is the viewpoint content is separated from the replies and sub-replies and the user can scroll through the replies while the comment remains at the top of the reply thread. This corresponds to the viewpoint comment by Sebastien in the first region staying in the first region, while the reply comments about the first trending event are displayed with a scrolling effect in the second region. See also col. 11, line 42 – col. 12, line 10 for a description of fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Clediere discloses an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a memory; and one or more computer programs (See at least the “Hardware Implementation” section starting at col. 21, specifically, the paragraph starting at col 21, line 59 and ending at col. 22 tile 15 and the paragraph starting at col. 22, line 27 and ending at col. 22, line 41, which disclose a processor, memory and computer programs); wherein the one or more computer programs are stored in the memory, and the one or more computer programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to implement… (This claim is rejected for the same reasons provided with respect to claim 1, above, which discloses all the method elements of the computer program stored and executed by the device disclosed by Clediere/Kanter.)
Regarding claim 17, Clediere/Kanter disclose the electronic device according to claim 15, above. Clediere/Kanter further discloses the device, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to perform: displaying the viewpoint content about the first trending event in a form of a card. This claim is rejection for the same reasons provided with respect to claim 4, above, which discloses all the method element of the computer program stored and executed by the device disclosed by Clediere/Kanter.
Regarding claim 20, Clediere discloses a non-transitory computer storage medium storing computer instructions, wherein the computer instructions, when executed on an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform… (See at least the “Hardware Implementation” section starting at col. 21, specifically, the paragraph starting at col 21, line 59 and ending at col. 22 tile 15 and the paragraph starting at col. 22, line 27 and ending at col. 22, line 41, which discloses a computer-readable medium and computer instructions executed on an electronic device.) This claim is rejected for the same reasons provided with respect to claim 1, above, which discloses all the method elements of the computer instructions stored and executed by the device disclosed by Clediere/Kanter.
Claim(s) 4,14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clediere (US Patent 11,533,286) and Kanter (US PGPub 2017/0017369), in further view of Dye et al (US PGPub 2017/0357421 herein after referred to as Dye).
Regarding claim 4, Clediere/Kanter disclose the method according to claim 1, above. Clediere further discloses the method comprising: viewpoint contents about the first trending event that fit in the first region (see at least reproduced and annotated fig. 3, above, which shows viewpoint contents by Sebastien about the first trending event which is fit in the first region). Furthermore, Clediere discuses swiping to display different viewpoint contents which are shown in the first region (a user can navigate to another comment thread, or viewpoint content, by using a swipe gesture; see at least col. 8 lines 35-37. See also fig. 3 where viewpoint contents about an event by Sebastien is shown. After switching Claire’s comment is shown in the first region, see at least fig. 4C) – this teaching shows that the invention by Clediere includes a number of viewpoint contents which can be shown one at a time in the first region. However, Clediere does not explicitly disclose displaying the total number of the viewpoint contents or numbering each of the viewpoint contents as they are shown.
It is well known in the art of displaying multiple pages of content to give the context the page by numbering pages, for example: page 1 of 3. This may also be done for lists of items, for example of multimedia items as taught by Dye in at least fig. 5AK, where it is shown that the multimedia content includes 8 items which is considered a first numerical value representing a total number of the available multimedia items, and each content item is numbered which is considered the second numerical value representing a number of the content item being displayed which is also a quantity of the first numerical value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Clediere, Kanter and Dye, which are in the analogous arts of displaying media content, to apply the well-known concept of showing the total number of items available and numbering each item (as taught by Dye, see at least fig. 5AK) to the specific media content disclosed by Clediere of viewpoint contents about the first trending event for the purpose of giving context information about how many items are available. This combination would natural result in displaying a first numerical value and a second numerical value in the first region (note that since the viewpoint contents disclosed by Clediere is shown in the first region, labeling the content item with a total and item number would also be in the first region), wherein the first numerical value represents a total number of viewpoint contents about the first trending event that fit in the first region, and the second numerical value represents a numbering of the viewpoint content about the first trending event being displayed in the first region among the viewpoint contents in quantity of the first numerical value.
Regarding claim 14, Clediere/Kanter disclose the method according to claim 1, above. While Clediere discloses playing multiple multimedia content of any number of trending events, which would include another multimedia content of the first trending event or… a second trending event (Content items, which are considered to be displayed trending events, are for example: emoji, image, video, article, link, etc. see at least col. 6 lines 31-36.), Clediere does not provide details on how a user can move from one playing one multimedia content of a first or second trending event to the next. However, in the analogous art of displaying and playing media content Dye discloses an app comprising: playing another multimedia content … in response to receiving a third sliding operation on the first page (paragraph [0197] and Figs. 5J-5M illustrate a swipe 581E causing playback of a next media item in a queue.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the teaching of Dye of using a swipe to play the next multimedia content item (which could be a that is disclosed by Clediere for the purpose of providing an easy transition to the next item. Furthermore, as two other slide operations were already disclosed by Clediere, as discussed with respect to claim 1, above, this additional slide operation would be counted as the third sliding operation.
Regarding claim 18, Clediere/Kanter disclose the electronic device according to claim 15, above. Clediere/Kanter further discloses the device, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to perform… This claim is rejected for the same reasons provided with respect to claim 5, above, which discloses all the method elements performed by the one or more processors disclosed by Clediere/Kanter.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clediere (US Patent 11,533,286) and Kanter (US PGPub 2017/0017369), in further view of Miyazaki et al. (US PGPub 2012/0030625 known herein after as Miyazaki).
Regarding claim 11, Clediere/Kanter disclose the method according to claim 1, above. Clediere further discloses the method, wherein the displaying the comment contents about the first trending event with the scrolling effect in the second region comprises: (The comments about the first trending event in response to Sebastien’s viewpoint content are displayed in the second region of the first page; see fig. 3 comments by Jamie, Patrick, ect. See also reproduced and annotated fig. 3, above. Regarding the scrolling effect, see at least col. 9, lines 48-54, wherein Clediere discloses that the comment which is the viewpoint content is separated from the replies and sub-replies and the user can scroll through the replies while the comment remains at the top of the reply thread. This corresponds reply comments about the first trending event are displayed with a scrolling effect in the second region, that is not the top position.)
Clediere does not explicitly disclose a comment title. However, in the analogous art of displaying multimedia content, Miyazaki teaches displaying a title at the top of a set of multimedia content items (See at least fig. 15, where the title is “Album1”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Miyazaki into the invention disclosed by the combination of Clediere and Kanter, to include a title at the top of a set of content items for the purpose of providing a context reminder in the commonly known and used form of a title along with the related comments. This combination would result in displaying a comment title of the first trending event at a top position of the second region because this is the location of the scrollable content items which are comments.
Regarding claim 12, Clediere/Kanter/Miyazaki disclose the method according to claim 11, above. Clediere further discloses the method, wherein in response to determining the number of comment contents about the first trending event exceeds a preset third threshold, the method further comprises: from the top position of the second region with the scrolling effect. (The comments about the first trending event in response to Sebastien’s viewpoint content are displayed in the second region of the first page; see fig. 3 comments by Jamie, Patrick, ect. See also reproduced and annotated fig. 3, above. Regarding the scrolling effect, see at least col. 9, lines 48-54, wherein Clediere discloses that the comment which is the viewpoint content is separated from the replies and sub-replies and the user can scroll through the replies while the comment remains at the top of the reply thread. This corresponds to the viewpoint comment by Sebastien in the first region staying in the first region, while the reply comments about the first trending event are displayed with a scrolling effect in the second region.) As discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 11, above, Clediere/Kanter does not discloses including a title, but that Miyazaki teaches this element and the combination results in a comment title being displayed at the top position of the second region. Also as discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 11, Clediere discloses scrolling through comments. Furthermore, Miyazaki also teaches scrolling through multimedia items (see at least fig. 15 and associated descriptions), which results in the title “Album 1” not being displayed as a user scrolls farther down the page. Therefore, because displaying any items on a screen is simply a function of rendering the item or not rendering the item, in this way Miyazaki teaches in response to determining the number of cancelling the displaying of the at least in that when the number of content items exceeds a present number of items that will fit on the page, the title will no longer be rendered (and thus cancelling the displaying of the title) and displaying the plurality of (see at least fig. 15 – as a user scrolls the title at the top of the section will no longer be rendered). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Miyazaki into the invention of Clediere/Kanter to include a comment title for the purpose of providing context information about the comments and to use all the available space to display the comment contents when performing the scrolling operation disclosed by Clediere by scrolling the title off the page and thus cancelling the displaying of the title, as taught by Miyazaki (see at least fig. 15). Regarding the preset third threshold – logically the combination also discloses this limitation at least in that scrolling is available when the number of comment contents about the first trending event exceed a number that fits on the screen as both Clediere and Miyazaki show scrolling operations being used without resizing the words shown on the page which naturally limits. The only other alternative to scrolling when things don’t fit, is to scroll when things do fit, therefore allowing a user to scroll on indefinitely through blank pages for no apparent reason. Given the limited number of options (only 2), the obvious choice is to scroll when things don’t fit on a page, rather than scrolling through nothing.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clediere (US Patent 11,533,286) in view of Kanter (US PGPub 2017/0017369) as evidenced by Wikapedia (entry for web-based link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink herein after known as Wikapedia, which includes the same description in the copy available on 3/1/2021 via the Internet Archive Way Back Machine) wherein Wikapedia gives a general definition and references a user guide from 1987 by Apple Macintosh, which is also provided as evidence (“HyperCard User’s Guide”, which is dated as published in 1987 and was available online via the way back machine as of 12/31/2018 and herein after referred to as Apple Macintosh).
Regarding claim 21, Clediere/Kanter disclose the method according to claim 1, above. Clediere further discloses the method, further comprising: in response to triggering the viewpoint content in the first region of the first page, redirecting to the another application (the viewpoint content is the comment in the first region, and the number of replies, or comments, is in the second region, see at least reproduced and annotated fig. 3, above. A comment thread can display a comment, or viewpoint content, based on a number of replies, or comments, exceeding a threshold value. See at least col. 7, lines 30-33. See also ranking activity or popularity, see at least col. 5 line 65 – col. 6, line 20. The applicant’s present specification defines the “another application” as possibility being a different page of the same application, Clediere teaches other pages of the application are used to create comments when a user clicks to respond, which corresponds to redirecting to the “another application” as it is an another page of the same application: see at least col. 3 line 53 – col. 4 line 3.)
In the interest of compact prosecution, an alternative interpretation is considered and also disclosed by Clediere: that the comments are obtained from another application associated with the application in that different users using different pages of their own instant of the application write comments, and these instants of the application are different applications that are all associated. See at least col. 2 lines 45-58. In this alternative additional rejection, Clediere also teaches that the content item could be a link (see at least col 2, lines 44-59). A definition of a link is “a digital reference providing direct access to data by a user’s clicking or tapping” which is well known in the art and has also been used since 1987, for allowing users to be redirected to separate applications (as evidenced by Wikipedia, in the history section and on page 49 of the reference “HyperCard User Guide” by Apple Macintosh). Therefore, even if another application were interpreted as being an entirely separate application (note: this interpretation is not required, based on the definition of “another application” provided in applicant’s specification.), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Clediere/Kanter/Wikipedia and use a link to redirect to a different application for the purpose of using the link taught by Clediere as links are intended to be used, to conveniently link to the different application that is also disclosed by Clediere (See at least col. 2 lines 45-58).
Regarding claim 22, Clediere/Kanter disclose the electronic device according to claim 15, above.
Clediere/Kanter as evidenced by Wikapedia/Apple Macintosh, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to perform… This claim is rejected for the same reasons provided with respect to claim 21, above, which discloses all the method element performed by the one or more processors disclosed by Clediere/Kanter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Falkenburg (US PGPub 2015/0355795) discloses a content viewer with viewpoints and comments from other social media apps and websites related to the content.
Matas (US PGPub 2016/0323395) discloses a content viewer wherein a swipe gesture switches the view to viewpoints and comments related to the content.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE D CHAVEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1104. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, John Cottingham can be reached at (571) 272-1400. 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.
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186