DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 05/14/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9-11, 13, 16-20 have been amended. Claim 3 has been canceled. Claims 1, 2, and 4-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 18, and 20 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretations/Examiner’s Notes
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow (see In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Also, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). The following is provided to aid the reader in understanding how at least some claim elements (also commonly referred to as claim limitations), as a whole, have been considered in the rejections below:
“in response to” [e.g. claims 7-14, 16, and 17] = Even though the prior art rejection included below does not depend on the following technicality, it is nonetheless respectfully noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Therefore, as currently claimed, functionalities that currently depend on a brand new/previously un-determined condition introduced by the “in response to” clause being true may not be narrowing the claims to the extent it may have been intended since, for purposes of prior art analysis, any prior art scenario showing at least one mappable instance wherein the contingency/triggering condition is not met/true would suffice to anticipate or teach these aspects. See “Contingent Limitations” in MPEP § 2111.04, subsection II and/or MPEP § 2143.03.
“wishing” = For purposes of prior art analysis, recitations reciting “wishing” will be interpreted as a non-functional label describing an intended use/result for an otherwise application agnostic claim limitation/element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. See, for example:
Claim 1:
Lines 15-16 recite “wherein the target special effect data comprises picture content information of entrance special effect.” Before this point, there was already precedent for a “preset entrance special effect.” However, since the limitation reciting “picture content information of entrance special effect” is clearly missing necessary wording (or at least an article) between the words “of” and “entrance,” this limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the picture content information was intended to be associated with the aforementioned “preset entrance special effect” or a brand new/different “entrance special effect.”
Claim 18:
Lines 18-19 recite “wherein the target special effect data comprises picture content information of entrance special effect.” Before this point, there was already precedent for a “preset entrance special effect.” However, since the limitation reciting “picture content information of entrance special effect” is clearly missing necessary wording (or at least an article) between the words “of” and “entrance,” this limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the picture content information was intended to be associated with the aforementioned “preset entrance special effect” or a brand new/different “entrance special effect.”
Claim 20:
Lines 18-19 recite “wherein the target special effect data comprises picture content information of entrance special effect.” Before this point, there was already precedent for a “preset entrance special effect.” However, since the limitation reciting “picture content information of entrance special effect” is clearly missing necessary wording (or at least an article) between the words “of” and “entrance,” this limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the picture content information was intended to be associated with the aforementioned “preset entrance special effect” or a brand new/different “entrance special effect.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,2, 4-6, 9-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kong (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2022/0201364, hereinafter “Kong”).
As to independent claims 1, 18, and 20, Kong shows a page interaction method, a computer device, and a concomitant non-transitory computer readable medium [¶ 02], comprising:
displaying a first page [displaying a first/multimedia page (fig. 4; ¶ 165)], wherein the first page comprises a first image layer [e.g. a bullet screen editing interface 42 layer (fig. 4) and/or a style editing interface layer (figs. 5A-5B)] and a second image layer in an expanded state, and the second image layer comprises a wishing pool area [e.g. a multimedia playback interface layer 41 layer, which is in an expanded state and as noted above, could be given the non-functional description or intended use of pertaining to a “wishing pool area” (figs. 4 & 7; ¶ 37)];
detecting that the first page meets a preset entrance condition; in response to detecting that the first page meets the preset entrance condition, displaying the first image layer on the second image layer [¶ 71], and playing a preset entrance special effect in the first image layer [“The bullet screen editing operation may be a screen touch operation performed by the user on a multimedia playback interface (that is, a playback interface of the multimedia information). For example, when it is detected that the user performs a screen touch operation on the multimedia playback interface currently playing the multimedia information, the bullet screen editing interface is displayed. The screen touch operation may include a sliding gesture operation, a double-click/tap operation, a long-press operation, or the like. The user may flexibly set different screen touch operations as bullet screen editing operations according to requirements of the user, so as to customize the bullet screen editing operations. For example, the user may set a double-click/tap operation as the bullet screen editing operation. When detecting a double-click/tap operation on the multimedia playback interface, the client displays the bullet screen editing interface.
{…} Using the multimedia playback interface and the bullet screen editing interface as an example, the bullet screen editing interface displayed by the client when the client receives the bullet screen editing operation may be used for completely overlaying the multimedia playback interface, and the bullet screen editing interface may be alternatively a window-like interface, which is used for overlapping a part of the multimedia playback interface, so that the user can edit a bullet screen while viewing the multimedia information.” (¶¶ 69-71)
See also ¶¶ 38-39, 73, 76, 79, 108-109, 132-137, & 158 for examples of playable special effects.], wherein the preset entrance special effect is a preset entrance-related animation special effect [the preset entrance special effect may describe a preset entrance-related animation special effect based on how the special effects/animations start for a first time (¶¶ 108-109 & 158)], and the playing the preset entrance special effect in the first image layer comprises:
obtaining label information of a current user, wherein the label information comprises information indicating whether the current user enters the first page for a first time; searching for target special effect data that matches the label information of the current user, wherein the target special effect data comprises picture content information of entrance special effect; and playing the preset entrance special effect in the first image layer based on the target special effect data [Label information of a current user may be obtained and target special effect data may be searched and matched to this user (¶¶ 83-85 & 103-105). This information may indicate how the animations/target special effects should be played (¶¶ 38-39, 73, 76, 79, 108-109, 132-137, & 158) when the current user enters the first page at a first/starting time (¶¶ 108-109 & 158).]; and
after the preset entrance special effect is played, canceling display of the first image layer, and playing interactive bullet-screen comments [¶ 36] in the wishing pool area of the second image layer through scrolling [after the preset entrance special effect is played (displaying the first layer), canceling display of the first image layer (cancelling the display of the first layer after sending the desired bullet/comment), and playing interactive bullet-screen comments in the wishing pool area of the second image layer through scrolling (fig. 7; ¶¶ 03, 75, 91, & 169)].
As to dependent claims 2 and 19, Kong further shows:
wherein the preset entrance condition comprises: a display duration of the first page that is greater than or equal to a preset duration; or a sliding location of a slide operation performed on the second image layer being located in a preset area [the preset entrance condition may comprise a display duration of the first page being greater than or equal to preset duration (¶¶ 75, 105, & 110) or a sliding location of a slide operation performed on the second image layer being located in a preset area (¶ 69)].
As to dependent claim 4, Kong further shows:
wherein the label information further comprises a personal information label of the current user [the label information comprises personal information label of the user (¶¶ 83-85, 103-105, & 162)].
As to dependent claim 5, Kong further shows:
wherein the playing the interactive bullet-screen comments in the wishing pool area of the second image layer through scrolling comprises: obtaining posting moments corresponding to the interactive bullet-screen comments; sorting the interactive bullet-screen comments based on the posting moments to obtain a sorting result; and playing the interactive bullet-screen comments in the wishing pool area of the second image layer through scrolling based on the sorting result [playing the interactive bullet-screen comments in the wishing pool area of the second image layer through scrolling comprises: obtaining posting moments (“time points”) corresponding to the interactive bullet-screen comments; sorting the interactive bullet-screen comments based on the posting moments to obtain a sorting result (“sequence”); and playing the interactive bullet-screen comments in the wishing pool area of the second image layer through scrolling based on the sorting result/sequence (fig. 7; ¶¶ 03 & 46)].
As to dependent claim 6, Kong further shows:
wherein the interactive bullet-screen comments in the wishing pool area are presented as a plurality of layers of structures, each layer of structure has a corresponding playing parameter [the interactive bullet-screen comments in the wishing pool area are presented as a plurality of layers of structures (or data structures), each layer of structure has a corresponding playing parameter (¶¶ 03, 187, & 191-193)], and
the playing the interactive bullet-screen comments in the wishing pool area of the second image layer through scrolling comprises: playing the interactive bullet-screen comments in each layer of structure in the wishing pool area of the second image layer through scrolling based on the corresponding playing parameter, so that the interactive bullet-screen comments present a spatial effect of staggered distribution [playing interactive bullet-screen comments in each layer of structure in the wishing pool area of the second image layer through scrolling based on the corresponding playing parameter, “so that” the interactive bullet-screen comments could be reasonably interpreted as having the intended result of being presented as having “a spatial effect of staggered distribution” (fig. 7; ¶¶ 03, 46, & 108-111)].
As to dependent claim 9, Kong further shows:
in response to a first trigger operation performed on a target bullet-screen comment of the interactive bullet-screen comments, displaying a bullet-screen comment pop-up window [¶ 71], and displaying details information corresponding to the target bullet-screen comment in the bullet-screen comment pop-up window [in response to a first trigger operation performed on a target bullet-screen comment in the interactive bullet-screen comments (¶ 69), displaying a bullet-screen comment pop-up window, and displaying details information corresponding to the target bullet-screen comment in the bullet-screen comment pop-up window (e.g. the bullet screen style editing interface 42 (fig. 4) or an even further style editing interface (fig. 5A-5B))].
As to dependent claim 10, Kong further shows:
wherein the details information comprises a wish support value, and the method further comprises: displaying a support control in the bullet-screen comment pop-up window; and in response to a second trigger operation performed on the support control, increasing the wish support value corresponding to the target bullet-screen comment by a preset value [the comment-related pop-up windows display controls to increase corresponding comment-related values, and these values may be reasonably interpretable as/attributable with the “wish support” non-functional description/label (figs. 4-6; ¶¶ 85 & 103)].
As to dependent claim 11, Kong further shows:
displaying an information storage control in the bullet-screen comment pop-up window; and storing a picture corresponding to the target bullet-screen comment in response to a third trigger operation performed on the information storage control [the comment-related pop-up windows display controls that may store/save/record the contents (including pictures/symbols and text) of a given comment (figs. 4-5B & 7; ¶¶ 03, 75, 91, 137, 169, 193, & 197)].
As to dependent claim 12, Kong further shows:
displaying a share control in the bullet-screen comment pop-up window; generating a bullet-screen comment poster corresponding to the target bullet-screen comment in response to a touch operation performed on the share control; and sharing the bullet-screen comment poster on a second page [all of the pop-up window alternatives are operable to display a share/”Send” control to generate a “poster” of the comment and share the comment/poster on a second page (figs. 4-5B; ¶¶ 03, 75, 85, 91, 103, & 169)].
As to dependent claim 13, Kong further shows:
wherein the second image layer further comprises a make-a-wish control, and the method further comprises: displaying a bullet-screen comment input box and a post control in response to a fourth trigger operation performed on the make-a-wish control; receiving, by using the bullet-screen comment input box, a first bullet-screen comment input by a current user; and in response to a fifth trigger operation performed on the post control, playing a preset wishing special effect, and after the preset wishing special effect is played, displaying the first bullet-screen comment in the wishing pool area of the second image layer [a “make-a-wish” control generate a new comment may be operated to display a bullet-screen comment input box and a post/Send control in response to a fourth trigger operation performed on the make-a-wish control (figs. 4-5B; ¶¶ 91, 114, & 165); receiving, by using the bullet-screen comment input box, a first bullet-screen comment input by a current user (figs. 4-5B; ¶¶ 91, 114, & 165); and in response to a fifth trigger operation performed on the post control, playing a preset wishing special effect (¶ 137), and after the preset wishing special effect is played, displaying the first bullet-screen comment in the wishing pool area of the second image layer (fig. 7; ¶¶ 03, 75, 91, & 169)].
As to dependent claim 15, Kong further shows:
wherein among the interactive bullet-screen comments, a first bullet-screen comment posted by a current user is displayed in a first preset style, and second bullet-screen comments posted by other users are displayed in a second preset style [comments posted by different users may be displayed in different styles (¶¶ 38 & 103-106].
As to dependent claim 16, Kong further shows:
wherein the first page further comprises a third image layer, the second image layer further comprises a close control, and the method further comprises: in response to a sixth trigger operation performed on the close control, hiding the second image layer, and displaying the third image layer on the first page, wherein the third image layer comprises a bullet-screen comment area used to display the interactive bullet-screen comments [a control operated to summon bullet screen editing interface 42 layer (fig. 4) and/or a style editing interface layer (figs. 5A-5B) (both of which comprise a bullet-screen comment area used to display the interactive bullet-screen comments) has the effect of hiding the second image layer by having this new/third layer be overlaid upon it (¶¶ 69, 71, & 119)].
As to dependent claim 17, Kong further shows:
displaying the second image layer in response to a seventh trigger operation performed on the bullet-screen comment area of the third image layer [the second image layer may be re-displayed in response to a seventh trigger and/or “Send” operation performed on the bullet-screen comment area of the third image layer (fig. 7; ¶¶ 03, 75, 91, & 169)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Bhattacharya et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0200078, hereinafter “Bhattacharya”).
As to dependent claim 7, Kong further shows an operability to adjust the playing parameters of a comment in response to a slide operation (Kong: ¶¶ 69, 82, 120, 126, & 170). Nonetheless, Kong does not appear to explicitly recite “adjusting, in response to a slide operation performed on the wishing pool area of the second image layer, the motion speed based on a sliding direction of the slide operation” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Bhattacharya shows:
wherein the playing parameter comprises a motion speed, and the method further comprises: adjusting, in response to a slide operation performed on the wishing pool area of the second image layer, the motion speed based on a sliding direction of the slide operation [“FIG. 4 shows the filter line 211 in a visible form, shown as a bar 300. FIG. 4 shows the filter line 211 as movable by a user, designated by the arrow 400. The filter line 211 is slidable from left to right in this example, i.e. perpendicular to the extent of the filter line. Thus, the particular point at which the filter line overlays the video 200 and therefore at which point comment filtering and the removal of comments is provided is user-modifiable. The movement of the filter line 211 thus affects the size of the first area 214 and the size of the second area 215. {…}” (Bhattacharya: ¶ 77)
“{…} FIG. 4 shows the apparatus 100 providing for slowing of a scrolling speed of one or more of the plurality of comments provided for display in a localised area extending from the current location of the selection marker 401. The localised area comprising a predefined focus area 405 extends from the filter line 211 into the first area 214 around the selection marker 211. The focus area 405 has a height 406, the height 406 extending in the direction of the filter line 211, which is less than a length of the filter line 211 to thereby provide for localised slowing of the scrolling comments approaching the selection marker 401. In one or more examples, the height 406 of the focus area may be substantially equal to the length of the filter line 211. In one or more examples, a boundary of the focus area may be explicitly provided for display or not explicitly provided for display. It will be appreciated that the slowing of the comments may implicitly show the boundary of the focus area 405.
{…} The degree to which the comment scrolling is reduced may be predetermined, based on the size of the first area 214 or on a quantity or density of the comments provided for display.” (Bhattacharya: ¶¶ 88-89)].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kong and Bhattacharya before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Bhattacharya’s speed adjustment techniques into Kong. The rationale for doing so would have been that it “may be advantageous as with a limited display area and potentially many comments to display, the user-moveable filter line provides for easy viewing of filtered and unfiltered comments. {…} The filter line 211 and further, when it is movable, may, in one or more examples, provide for advantageous use of limited display area” (Bhattacharya: ¶ 77). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kong and Bhattacharya (hereinafter, the “Kong-Bhattacharya” combination) in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 7.
As to dependent claim 8, Kong-Bhattacharya further shows:
wherein the adjusting, in response to the slide operation performed on the wishing pool area of the second image layer, the motion speed based on the sliding direction of the slide operation comprises: in response to the slide operation performed on the wishing pool area of the second image layer, reducing the motion speed in accordance with a determination that the sliding direction of the slide operation is to slide leftward or downward; or in response to the slide operation performed on the wishing pool area of the second image layer, increasing the motion speed in accordance with a determination that the sliding direction of the slide operation is to slide rightward or upward [“FIG. 4 shows the filter line 211 in a visible form, shown as a bar 300. FIG. 4 shows the filter line 211 as movable by a user, designated by the arrow 400. The filter line 211 is slidable from left to right in this example, i.e. perpendicular to the extent of the filter line. Thus, the particular point at which the filter line overlays the video 200 and therefore at which point comment filtering and the removal of comments is provided is user-modifiable. The movement of the filter line 211 thus affects the size of the first area 214 and the size of the second area 215. {…}” (Bhattacharya: ¶ 77)
“{…} FIG. 4 shows the apparatus 100 providing for slowing of a scrolling speed of one or more of the plurality of comments provided for display in a localised area extending from the current location of the selection marker 401. The localised area comprising a predefined focus area 405 extends from the filter line 211 into the first area 214 around the selection marker 211. The focus area 405 has a height 406, the height 406 extending in the direction of the filter line 211, which is less than a length of the filter line 211 to thereby provide for localised slowing of the scrolling comments approaching the selection marker 401. In one or more examples, the height 406 of the focus area may be substantially equal to the length of the filter line 211. In one or more examples, a boundary of the focus area may be explicitly provided for display or not explicitly provided for display. It will be appreciated that the slowing of the comments may implicitly show the boundary of the focus area 405.
{…} The degree to which the comment scrolling is reduced may be predetermined, based on the size of the first area 214 or on a quantity or density of the comments provided for display.” (Bhattacharya: ¶¶ 88-89)].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Rose et al. (US Patent Application Pub. No. 2019/0327197, hereinafter “Rose”).
As to dependent claim 14, Kong further shows:
wherein the second image layer further comprises a my-bullet-screen-comment control, and the method further comprises: displaying details information corresponding to the first bullet-screen comment in response to a tap operation performed on the my-bullet-screen-comment control [details information corresponding to the first bullet-screen comment may be displayed (via the bullet screen style editing interface 42 (fig. 4) and/or via a style editing interface (fig. 5A-5B)) in response to a tap operation performed on a comment-related control (¶ 69)]; and
displaying, in response to a slide operation performed on the details information corresponding to the first bullet-screen comment, {…} [Kong shows displaying a plurality of varying comment-related features in response to a slide operation performed on the details information corresponding to the first bullet-screen comment (Kong: ¶¶ 69, 82, 120, 126, & 170)].
Kong does not appear to explicitly recite “displaying, in response to a slide operation performed on the details information corresponding to the first bullet-screen comment, a third bullet-screen comment based on a sliding direction of the slide operation, wherein the third bullet-screen comment is any bullet-screen comment posted by the current user other than the first bullet-screen comment” as apparently intended. In an analogous art, Rose shows:
displaying, in response to a slide operation performed on the details information corresponding to the first bullet-screen comment, a third bullet-screen comment based on a sliding direction of the slide operation, wherein the third bullet-screen comment is any bullet-screen comment posted by the current user other than the first bullet-screen comment [“In FIG. 6C, the second comment thread 540 is displayed in the comment interface 580. The second comment thread 540 immediately follows the first comment thread 530 in the ordered set of comments and is accessed by using the comment navigation arrows 590. For instance, when the comment interface 580 displays the first comment thread 530 as shown in FIG. 6B, the user may interact with the right comment navigation arrow 590 to view the second comment thread. In other example embodiments, the user may request to view the second comment thread by swiping, scrolling, or otherwise interacting with the comment interface 580 in a horizontal direction. Responsive to the user's interaction with the comment interface 580, the comment interface 580 is updated to display the second comment thread 540 and the document interface displays a portion of the collaborative content item that corresponds to the second comment thread 540.
{…} It should be noted that the comment navigation system described herein can beneficially allow for a user to navigate within a comment thread using an interaction associated with a first direction (e.g., swiping up and down) while allowing the user to navigate between comment threads using an interaction associated with a second direction (e.g., swiping left and right, selecting the left and right comment navigation arrows 590).” (Rose: ¶¶ 88-90)].
One of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kong and Rose before them prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate Rose’s comment sliding techniques into Kong. The rationale for doing so would have been that by “providing a convenient interface for the mobile device that allows easy navigation between comment threads, users can respond to comments more quickly, workflow productivity can increase, and the time to complete a collaborative project may decrease” (Rose: ¶ 04). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kong and Rose in order to obtain the invention as recited in claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“As defined in claim 1, the present entrance special effect is a preset entrance-related animation special effect (e.g., a welcome animation special effect when a user enters the page). The Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references do not involve such a present entrance special effect.
Particularly, in the Office Action, the Examiner seems to rely on paragraph [0137] of Kong for the special effects:
[0137] The user may also add a corresponding special effect to the bullet screen content, for example, add some flames, color stripes, or the like to all or some characters.
However, as shown above, the corresponding special effect are added to the bullet screen content by the user, which is irrelevant to "a preset entrance-related animation special effect" defined in the amended claim 1.
Therefore, Kong fails to disclose or teach "wherein the preset entrance special effect is a preset entrance-related animation special effect".”
The Office respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s analysis. First, it is noted that now the Office has supplemented paragraph 137 with a plethora of other examples in Kong showing its many special effect possibilities. Moreover, the fact that a user may deliberately set the special effects that may occur when entering the bullet-based graphical user interface is not “irrelevant” as alleged. It is entirely pertinent to entrance effects because it shows the many ways that these special effects may take shape in future entrances/starts. Lastly, it bears noting that for purposes of prior art analysis, even though the Office Action does not need to rely on the following technicality, the “entrance-related” qualifier is currently recited a mere non-functional/descriptive label for an otherwise application-agnostic “effect,” and neither does it in and of itself attribute extra functionality to the effect limitation, nor does it automatically bring on any extra unclaimed functionalities from the Specification onto the claims.
“Further, to expedite the prosecution, the Applicant has incorporated the additional features of the previous claim 3, and further defines "wherein the label information comprises information indicating whether the current user enters the first page for a first time" and "wherein the target special effect data comprises picture content information of entrance special effect". In other words, the picture content information of entrance special effect is determined based on label information, which comprises information indicating whether the current user enters the first page for a first time. The Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references do not involve such features.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. Kong shows how the preset entrance special effect may describe a preset entrance-related animation special effect based on how the special effects/animations start for a first time (¶¶ 108-109 & 158). Kong also shows how label information of a current user may be obtained and target special effect data may be searched and matched to this user (¶¶ 83-85 & 103-105). This information may indicate how the animations/target special effects should be played (¶¶ 38-39, 73, 76, 79, 108-109, 132-137, & 158) when the current user enters the first page at a first/starting time (¶¶ 108-109 & 158). Moreover, even though Kong’s passages do not necessarily rely on the following technicality, Applicant is also respectfully advised that the metes and bounds of “a first time” as currently recited appear to be significantly broader than what appears to be implied by their arguments, since for purposes of prior art analysis, this limitation would be reasonably interpretable as any given “time” with a “first” qualifier/label to differentiate it from other (second, third, etc.) times. Lastly, Applicant is also advised that method claims 7-14, 16, and 17 remain significantly broad since they are still replete with “in response to” contingencies.
Therefore, the Office respectfully asserts that the cited art sufficiently teaches the limitations recited in the amended claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO R CALDERON IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:30am - 5:00pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO R. CALDERON IV/
Examiner
Art Unit 2171
/KIEU D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights