Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/511,870

INFORMATION DISPLAY METHOD AND APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 16, 2023
Examiner
DISTEFANO, GREGORY A
Art Unit
2174
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
BEIJING ZITIAO NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
363 granted / 527 resolved
+13.9% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
552
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
§103
58.1%
+18.1% vs TC avg
§102
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
§112
8.2%
-31.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 527 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 9/19/2025. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, 14-16, and 18-23 are currently 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/20/2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12 of amendment, filed 8/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Jeon in view of Li have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zabetti et al. (US 2011/0273576), hereinafter Zabetti. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2020/0128175), hereinafter Jeon, in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0223924), hereinafter Li, in view of Zambetti. As per claim 1, Jeon teaches the following: an information display method, comprising: displaying, on a draft box page, the following: a plurality of video drafts, a first capturing control and set prompt information at a position associated with the first capturing control, wherein the set prompt information indicates the first capturing control is used for entering a capturing page. As Jeon teaches in paragraph [0104], menus list 610 may include a photo taking button and/or a video recording button. As Jeon shows in Fig. 7, mini camera icons may present identification information which is interpreted as encompassing “set prompt information “ which “indicates” the control is used for entering a capturing page, target information comprising at least one recommended material. As Jeon teaches in paragraph [0075], a “mini camera” may be that of a camera package which includes various interfaces and/or capturing contents (recommended material), and at least one second capturing control associated with the at least one recommended material for entering the capturing page. As Jeon shows in Figs. 6-8, and corresponding paragraphs [0106]-[0110], a menu 610 may include a plurality of mini cameras, whereupon selection changes the display into the corresponding capture screen 810; and However, Jeon does not explicitly teach of the draft box page displaying a plurality of drafts. Li teaches the following: displaying, on a draft box page displaying a plurality of drafts. As Li shows in Fig. 9, a draft box section 504 may be displayed in a top section of the display. Upon the modification of Jeon in view of Li, the draft box section may be shown in place of the capturing section of Fig. 6, (not that of Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the interface of Jeon with the video drafts of Li. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because a Li teaches in paragraph [0003], organizing draft videos benefit users in locating desired material. Furthermore, Jeon does not explicitly teach of a switching to a capturing page and back to the draft box page. In a similar field of endeavor, Zambetti teaches of a method of managing videos (see abstract). Zambetti further teaches the following: obtaining a triggering operation operated on one of the first capturing control and the at least one second capturing control. As Zambetti shows in Fig. 8, step 804, a video interface is shown with a plurality of video thumbnails, including a live video thumbnail with a “record” label; displaying the capturing page in response to the triggering operation, for obtaining a new draft in the capturing page. As Zambetti shows in Fig. 8, step 816, upon selection of the live video thumbnail, a video capture environment is opened; and switching to display the draft box page comprising the plurality of draft and the new draft after obtaining the new draft. As Zambetti shows in Fig. 8, step 832, upon completion of recording a new video, a display is returned to the video interface with the newly captured video as a thumbnail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have further modified the interfaces Jeon in view of Li with the interface switching of Zambetti. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Zambetti teaches in the abstract, such live video thumbnails benefit users in enticing them to capture new videos. As per claim 11, Jeon teaches the following: An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and a storage configured to store one or more programs. See Fig. 2. The remaining limitations of claim 11 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning. As per claim 20, Jeon teaches the following: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer program thereon. See Fig. 2. The remaining limitations of claim 20 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning. Regarding claim 22, modified Jeon teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Jeon teaches the following: in response to the triggering operation operated on one of the at least one second capturing control, switching from the draft box page to the capturing page which applies a recommended material associated with the one of the at least one second capturing control. As Jeon shows in Figs. 7 and 8, and corresponding paragraph [0111], each mini camera is provided a name (set prompt information), and selection of which enter a capturing page as shown in Fig. 8 with associated “recommended material” 810 being selected. Claim(s) 4, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Li in view of Zambetti as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Hao (US 2020/0412976) Regarding claim 4, modified Jeon teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Jeon does not explicitly teach of determining target information in response to a number of drafts being display being less than a threshold. Hao teaches the following: in response to a number of the plurality of video drafts displayed on the draft box page being less than a threshold, determining the target information. As Hao teaches in paragraph [0187], and corresponding Figs. 4H and 4I, upon a user selecting a “prop” icon 32, a list of categorized props are presented as seen in Fig. 4I. This is interpreted as encompassing applicant’s limitation in that props are displayed for the single video selected/displayed, i.e., the one video being under a threshold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the video editing of Jeon with the prop control of Hao. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the props of Hao would benefit a user in allowing the user to select the desired effects to be added to a specific video. Regarding claim 8, modified Jeon teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Jeon does not explicitly teach of hiding controls. Hao teaches the following: in response to an editing operation operated on one of the at least one video draft displayed on the draft box page, hiding the first capturing control, the target information, and the at least one second capturing control. As Hao shows in the transition between Figs. 4U and 4V, all controls are hidden upon a user selection of a cover art control (editing operation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the video editing of Jeon with the editing control of Hao. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because the props of Hao would benefit a user in allowing the user to select the desired editing of a specific video while providing screen real estate not cluttered with unrelated controls. Regarding claims 14, modified Jeon teaches the device of claim 11 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 14 are substantially similar to those of claim 4, and are rejected using the same reasoning. Claim(s) 5, 6, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Li in view of Zambetti in view of Hao as applied to claims 1, 4, 11, and 14 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0294840), hereinafter Lee. Regarding claim 5, modified Jeon teaches the method of claim 4 as described above. However, Jeon does not explicitly teach of determining materials based upon a recommendation algorithm. Lee teaches the following: determining the target information comprises: determining music materials and/or prop materials applied by the plurality of video drafts, and ranking the music materials and/or the prop materials applied by the plurality of video drafts in accordance with a number of times applied by the plurality of video drafts; or determining music materials and/or prop materials collected by a user, and ranking or determining music materials and/or prop materials whose recommendation degrees reach a threshold based on a personalized recommendation algorithm, and ranking the music materials and/or the prop materials whose recommendation degrees reach the threshold in accordance with the recommendation degree. As Lee teaches in paragraph [0026], a user may supply a music query to a search system which can generate a feature vector of the query with a trained neural network. Lee teaches in paragraph [0027] that a user may specify one or more musical attributes for the search (personalized recommendation algorithm). Lee teaches in paragraph [0030] that a masking function may be applied to the vector space to filter only those vectors which are desired and paragraph [0032] that the masking function can include weighting coefficients corresponding to user-selected attributes; wherein the target information comprises the music materials and/or the prop materials. Lee further teaches in paragraph [0033] that only results which meet a similarity threshold are returned. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have further modified the sound recommendation of Jeon with the similarity search of Lee. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Lee teaches in paragraphs [0001] –[0003], such a similarity function would benefit a user of Jeon in locating music which is similar to another piece of music, but not the same as. Regarding claim 6, modified Jeon teaches the method of claim 5 as described above. However, as described above, Jeon does not explicitly teach of determining materials based upon a recommendation algorithm. Lee teaches the following: determining the music materials and/or prop materials whose recommendation degrees reach the threshold based on a personalized recommendation algorithm comprises: determining a recommendation degree of any one of the music materials and/or the prop materials according to reference dimensions and a corresponding weight for each reference dimension; and determining the music materials and/or the prop materials whose recommendation degrees reach the threshold. As Lee teaches in paragraph [0026], a user may supply a music query to a search system which can generate a feature vector of the query with a trained neural network. Lee teaches in paragraph [0027] that a user may specify one or more musical attributes for the search (personalized recommendation algorithm). Lee teaches in paragraph [0030] that a masking function may be applied to the vector space to filter only those vectors which are desired and paragraph [0032] that the masking function can include weighting coefficients corresponding to user-selected attributes. Lee further teaches in paragraph [0033] that only results which meet a similarity threshold are returned. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have further modified the sound recommendation of Jeon with the similarity search of Lee. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Lee teaches in paragraphs [0001] –[0003], such a similarity function would benefit a user of Jeon in locating music which is similar to another piece of music, but not the same as. Regarding claims 15 and 16, modified Jeon teaches the device of claim 14 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 15 and 16 are substantially similar to those of claims 5 and 6 respectively, and are rejected using the same reasoning. Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Li in view of Zambetti in view of Hao in view of Lee as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 14, and 15 above, and further in view of L Kwon et al. (US 2019/0012059), hereinafter Kwon. Regarding claim 9, modified Jeon teaches the method of claim 5 as described above. However, as described above, Jeon does not explicitly teach of triggering a second associated position. Kwon teaches the following: in response to a triggering operation operated at a second associated position of any one of the music materials or the prop materials, displaying a music detail page corresponding to any one of the music materials or a prop detail page corresponding to any one of the prop materials. As Kwon shows in Fig. 38B, and corresponding paragraph [0254], upon a user input directed to a particular song which has a pressure larger than a threshold, a pop-up window is displayed which relaying detail information about the particular song. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the music/sound effects of Jeon with the pop-up details of Kwon. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because such details would benefit a user in selecting a desired effect when the user may be unsure of a particular title of said effect, where further details would provide clarity of the actual effect. Regarding claim 18, modified Jeon teaches the device of claim 15 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 18 are substantially similar to those of claim 9, and are rejected using the same reasoning. Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Li in view of Zambetti as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Shah et al. (US 2015/0205761), hereinafter Shah. Regarding claim 10, modified Jeon teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Jeon does not explicitly teach of placeholders. Shah teaches of a method which may be implemented in a video editing program, (see paragraph [0019]), similar to that of Jeon. Shah further teaches the following: before displaying the target information on the draft box page, the method further comprises: displaying a preset placeholder on the draft box page until the target information is loaded. As Shah teaches in paragraph [0025], a representation or placeholder 226 of unloaded content 224 may be displayed while the unloaded content is loaded. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the information display of Jeon with the placeholders of Shah. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Shah teaches in paragraph [0004], such placeholders benefit a user in avoiding displaying a blank screen while information is loaded. Regarding claim 19, modified Jeon teaches the device of claim 11 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 19 are substantially similar to those of claim 10, and are rejected using the same reasoning. Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Li in view of Zambetti as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khan (US 2016/0225408). Regarding claim 21, modified Jeon teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Jeon does not explicitly teach of publishing videos. Khan teaches the following: in response to a posting instruction for one of the at least one video draft, generating a video based on the one of the at least one video draft; and posting the generated video based on the posting instruction, for pushing the generated video to one or more other terminals for display. Khan further teaches in paragraph [0056], and corresponding Fig. 3D, that videos may be in a “draft mode” and in paragraph [0052], and corresponding Fig. 3A-C, that a “share” 301 control is available for videos, i.e. the video is “posted”. This is interpreted as teaching applicant’s limitation in that a video shared to a social media site is “pushed” to other terminals which visit the site. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the videos of Jeon with the video sharing of Khan. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Khan teaches in paragraph [0004], such controls benefit users in allowing a video to be shared with the world. Regarding claim 23, modified Jeon teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Jeon does not explicitly teach of publishing videos. Khan teaches the following: in response to a posting instruction for a selected draft that is displayed on the draft box page, posting the selected draft. As Kahn shows on Figs. 3A-3B, previously recorded videos may be selected for sharing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the videos of Jeon with the video sharing of Khan. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Khan teaches in paragraph [0004], such controls benefit users in allowing a video to be shared with the world. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. HAO (US 2020/0413162), selecting draft videos to edit, see Fig. 3D. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 pm. 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, William Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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. /GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/ Examiner Art Unit 2174 /WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 16, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 15, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 28, 2024
Response Filed
Jul 12, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 18, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 20, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 18, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 16, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 24, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 20, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 19, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591356
ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR PERFORMING SCREEN CAPTURE AND METHOD FOR CAPTURING SCREEN BY ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585867
METHOD, SYSTEM, AND COMPUTING DEVICE FOR FACILITATING PRIVATE DRAFTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12566913
Artificial Intelligence Agents to Automate Multimodal Interface Task Workflows
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12541285
ELECTRONIC APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR OBTAINING A CAPTURE IMAGE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12530086
TRACTABLE BODY-BASED AR SYSTEM INPUT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+23.0%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 527 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month