DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 6/17/2026.
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-19 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are independent.
Claims 2-3 and 11-12 are canceled.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are newly amended.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 10, 13-14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Donnelley (US 9760254 B1) in view of Sou; Kaei (hereinafter Sou – US 20180190037 A1) and Woods; Thomas Steven et al. (hereinafter Woods – US 20130179783 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Donnelley teaches:
A method for displaying review information on a display screen of a computer device performed by a processor of the computer device, comprising: (the Instant Specification doesn’t provide a special definition for “review information”. Herein, it is broadly interpreted, according to the plain meaning of the term, that a “review” refers to a book review and includes detailed analysis information about a book, or portion thereof, which goes beyond a simple summary, rating, or display of related-books information, in order to provide a critical perspective of the book’s content. The information herein discussed is presented on a display screen of a computer device performed by a processor of the computer device, as reflected in col 23:24-42 and fig. 7)
acquiring reading progress information of a first book; (a server may receive a member’s “current read position”, in terms of page numbers, to track the reading progress of each member, of a book, e.g., e-book “The Long Night”, cols 4:18-50 and 11:54-12:6)
wherein the reading progress information is used to indicate a chapter that has been read by a user of the first book, and the chapter that has been read refers to the chapter of which at least any portion has been accessed by the user; (e.g., current progress position of “page 100” [reading progress information] indicating that a member has read up to the middle of chapter 2 [indicate chapter that has been read], col 4:22-24, or the end of Chapter 3 of the e-book ‘The Long Night’ [indicate chapter that has been read], cols 13:9-16 and 19:44-56, and figs. 2:206 and 5:502. Because the chapter can be deduced from pages numbers, this reflects that the reading progress information is used to indicate a chapter that has been read by a user of the first book, and the chapter that has been read refers to the chapter of which at least any portion has been accessed by the user)
determining, based on the reading progress information, whether a reading mode of the first book is a first reading mode or a second reading mode, (different completion modes can be deduced from the page numbers, e.g., the progress position can be “page 60”, indicating a 60% completion of a section containing chapters 1-3 of the book [first reading mode], or can be “page 100” indicating the a 100% completion of the section, [a second mode], e.g., see cols 13:63-14:38. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that the page number can be any page number equal to or less than, but close to page 1000, which indicates last chapter and section of the book, since the book is comprised of 20 chapters, cols 2:35-41, and 1000 pages, col 13:21-23. Note that Donnelley teaches recognizing that a user has reached the end of a chapter––which extends to any chapter, including a final chapter––and displaying associated supplemental content only at that specific stop-read position or breakpoints, cols 3:58-4:17,6:11-23 and Donnelley Claim 2. Furthermore, breakpoints are configured to correspond to chapter endings (whether predefined or user-selected) precisely to avoid revealing material prematurely before the user reaches the required reading progress milestone, cols 1:60-2:52,8:64-9:1)
wherein it is determined that the reading mode of the first book is the first reading mode in response to that the chapter that has been read does not comprise a last chapter of the first book (since chapter 20 is the last chapter, any section completion percentage, that doesn’t fall between x and 1000, wherein x is the page in which chapter 20 begins, is reflective of a chapter read that does not comprise a last chapter of the first book , see explanation above, and cols 2:35-41, 13:21-23 and 13:63-14:38. )
or it is determined that the reading mode of the first book is the second reading mode in response to that the chapter that has been read comprises the last chapter of the first book, (since chapter 20 is the last chapter, any section completion percentage, that falls between x and 1000, wherein x is the page in which chapter 20 begins, is reflective of a chapter read that does not comprise last chapter, see explanation above, and cols 2:35-41, 13:21-23 and 13:63-14:38. as mentioned in the 112(b) rejection above, for purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as referring to “the second reading mode” being reflective of a fact “that the chapter that has been read comprises the last chapter of the first book”)
determining, among book-related contents of the first book, book-related contents (supplemental content) matching (associated with) the reading mode of the first book, (supplemental content is provided, such as book commentary/review, associated with a stop-read position for a reading group, e.g., indicative of completion of chapters 1-3 [matching the reading progress information], Donnelley Claim 2 and cols 3:58-4:17, wherein the reading group can include one or more persons, col 3:8-32. The stop-read positions, or breakpoints, is not limited to being every three chapter, but can be at the end of any section of the book, e.g., at the end of every chapter, col 6:11-23)
[…], the book-related contents comprise a review of the first book, (supplemental content can include different types of book-related content, e.g., commentary, reviews [book review information of the first book], summaries, video/audio content, documents, e-books (e.g., different versions or related e-books), and/or the like, col 12:27-36)
[…], the book-related contents comprise book-related topics of the first book, (supplemental content can include different types of book-related content, e.g., commentary [book-related topics of the first book], reviews [book review information of the first book], summaries [book-related topics of the first book], video/audio content, documents, e-books (e.g., different versions or related e-books), and/or the like, col 12:27-36. Like book reviews, book commentaries and summaries are also considered to inherently comprise “book-related topics”, in a broad sense, because their primary purpose is to distill, analyze, and communicate the core themes, main arguments, and key concepts of the original text in the book.)
the review of the first book refers to review posted by other user who reads the first book with respect to part of the chapter contents of the chapter, (review information is restricted to specific chapters because the content server dynamically limits access to user-generated commentary—such as reviews, comments, and summaries—based on a reading group's current "stop-read" position in the e-book, and this commentary, including reviews, can be "provided [posted] by non-members or members of the group". This indicates implies that the members or non-members have read the chapter, and that the review information is user-generated content directly associated with the specific parts of the book (chapters) currently being read. See cols 3:58-4:17)
and the book-related topics of the first book refer to discussion topics associated with the first book; (as mentioned above, commentary can be "provided [posted] by non-members or members of the group", see cols 3:58-4:17. This commentary is interpreted as including discussion topics between the readers of the book, at least because one of the main purposes of the invention is to help “prevent members of the group from spoiling the reading for other members of the group (e.g., by prematurely discussing events that occur later in the reading content) and encouraging a productive discussion of the reading material up to the most recent breakpoint in reading content”, col 9:12-16.)
acquiring first review information of the chapter that has been read matching the reading progress information from the book-related contents matching the reading mode of the first book; (supplemental content [from the book-related contents matching the reading mode of the first book] is provided, such as book commentary/review [acquiring first review information], associated with material leading up to a current stop-read position for a reading group, e.g., material leading up to the end of 3 [matching the reading progress information], Donnelley Claim 2 and cols 3:58-4:17, wherein the reading group can include one or more persons, col 3:8-32)
and displaying the first review information on a book reading interface of the first book on the display screen of the computer device, (access to commentary/review information is provided on e-reader devices [displaying the first review information], cols 3:58-4:17, e.g., including rendering/display capabilities [on a book reading interface of the first book], and fig. 7 and col 10:41-49, on the display screen of the computer device, as reflected in col 23:24-42 and fig. 7)
wherein the acquiring first review information of the chapter that has been read matching the reading progress information from the book-related contents matching the reading mode of the first book comprises: in a case where the reading mode is the first reading mode, acquiring optional review matching the reading progress information from all the reviews of the first book, wherein the review that matches the chapter that has been read is determined as the optional review (Herein it is interpret the review information is “optional” (or dynamic) based on progress information. The same is taught be Donnelley, since the review information is based on the material leading up to a current stop-read position, as mentioned above)
[…].
Donnelley does not appear to expressly teach, but Sou teaches:
that the book-related contents are different based on in response to that the reading mode is the first reading mode, or in response to that the reading mode is the second reading mode (a system provides supplemental binocular stereoscopic content that enhances the user experience by offering additional, immersive visual information during the reading of a physical book, Abstract and ¶ 10, wherein the different types of content is dynamically triggered based on the reader's current progression position in the story, e.g., when a user has finished reading the book, creating a contextualized, active augmentation of the printed material, ¶¶ 9 and 103. Although in Sou, the book is a physical book, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the adjustment of types of supplemental information could be applied to electronic books as well).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Donnelley to include that the book-related contents are different based on in response to that the reading mode is the first reading mode, or in response to that the reading mode is the second reading mode, as taught by Sou.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user experience provided by the method, since displaying content based on reading progression enhances the user experience by delivering context-aware visual information, Sou ¶¶ 9 and 10, and naturally ensuring a suitable reading experience by preventing premature spoilers and maintaining proper narrative flow, especially in non-linear stories, Sou ¶ 103.
In as much as the supplemental information, such as book review content, is required to be “associated” with the chapter/section, review information that meets “a review quality requirement for the chapter”, Donnelley Claim 2 and cols 3:58-4:17.
However, Donnelley does not appear to expressly teach, but Woods teaches:
and determining, among the optional review, one piece of the optional review that meets a review quality requirement for the chapter that has been read, (in a system/method for efficient browsing of related, personalized content, Abstract, user-defined focus options (such as preference 832) allow control circuitry 304 to rank/sort related content based on a profile. Users can modify these preferences to establish a minimum threshold for content characteristics, determining which items are included [acquiring optional review information] and how they are sorted/ranked in a related content list, ¶ 106. In view of Donnelley, the list candidates for the list are “review” information, and match the reading progress information, as mapped for limitation(s) above. the ranking/sorting of the related items on the list, ¶ 106, is accomplished based on how strong a match or score is for the related items, ¶ 9. Therefore, “one piece of the optional review information” is necessarily selected to be first on the list, based on having the highest score [meets a review quality requirement])
and determine the first review information based on the one piece of the optional review that meets the review quality requirement, (the ranking/sorting of the related items on the list, ¶ 106, is accomplished based on how strong a match or score is for the related items, ¶ 9. Therefore, the one highest scored item is determined to be first on the list [“determine the first review information based on the one piece of the optional review information”])
or in response to that the reading mode is the second reading mode, (since supplemental information is related to different completion levels, as explained above, the related analysis explained above for the first reading mode, is also applicable for the second reading mode. )
sorting all the book-related topics of the first book according to preset sorting parameters so as to acquire topic sorting results, (in a system/method for efficient browsing of related, personalized content, Abstract, user-defined focus options (such as preference 832) [preset sorting parameters] allow control circuitry 304 to sort/rank related content based on a profile. Users can modify these preferences to establish a minimum threshold for content characteristics, determining which items are included [acquiring optional review information] and how they are sorted/ranked [preset sorting parameters] in a related content list, ¶ 106.)
and determining the book-related topic of the first book in the topic sorting result that meets the preset sorting requirements as the first review information. (the ranking/sorting of the related items on the list, ¶ 106, is accomplished based on how strong a match or score is for the related items, ¶ 9. Therefore, a topic is necessarily selected to be first on the list, based on having the highest score [meets the preset sorting requirements as the first review information], ¶ 106)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Donnelley to include and determining, among the optional review, one piece of the optional review that meets a review quality requirement for the chapter that has been read, and determine the first review information based on the one piece of the optional review that meets the review quality requirement, or in response to that the reading mode is the second reading mode, sorting all the book-related topics of the first book according to preset sorting parameters so as to acquire topic sorting results, and determining the book-related topic of the first book in the topic sorting result that meets the preset sorting requirements as the first review information, as taught by Woods.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the experience of the method, by providing content that is relevant and personalized for a user, Woods ¶¶ 2 and 33.
Further concerning method claim 1 and its dependent claims below: Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation (see MPEP § 2103.I.C.). Here, the claim(s) includes/include language that makes/make the step(s) optional but does/do not require it/them by stating a/an “or” condition without positively reciting a step in which the condition is actually met (as opposed to optionally met). Specifically, the optional language in these claims are:
“determining, based on the reading progress information, whether a reading mode of the first book is a first reading mode or a second reading mode”
“in response to that the reading mode is the first reading mode, acquiring optional review matching the reading progress information from all the reviews of the first book, wherein the review that matches the chapter that has been read is determined as the optional review; and determining, among the optional review one piece of the optional review that meets a review quality requirement for the chapter that has been read, and determine the first review information based on the one piece of the optional review that meets the review quality requirement;
OR in response to that the reading mode is the second reading mode, sorting all the book-related topics of the first book according to preset sorting parameters so as to acquire topic sorting results, and determining the book-related topic of the first book in the topic sorting result that meets the preset sorting requirements as the first review information”
Herein, the examiner maps art to both a “first” and “second” reading mode, mainly to address the apparatus and storage medium claims. However, only one of the modes (either the first or the second) is required to be determined in the method of claims 1 and its dependent claims below.
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Donnelley further teaches:
wherein determining the first review information based on the matched book-related content comprising:
in response to that the reading mode is a second reading mode, determining, among the book-related topics of the first book, a first book-related topic matching the reading progress information; (the book includes, e.g., 20 chapters, col 3:40-48, and the stop-read position may correspond to the end of any of those chapters, including the last chapter [the reading mode is a second reading mode], col 8:47-9:6),
and determining the first review information based on the first book-related topic. (as such, the book review presented to the user [determining the review information] is based on the data obtained from data store [based on the first book-related topic], col 10:28-40 and fig 1)
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Donnelley further teaches:
wherein the first review information comprises a topic expansion identifier; (review information may be presented to the user as one or more links [topic expansion identifier], cols 7:36-62 and 21:63-22:14 and fig. 6. inasmuch as “a topic expansion identifier” is described below as triggering operation, herein, it is broadly interpreted as included a button or icon to view more details related to the book, such as a link/hyperlink)
the method further comprises:
in response to a triggering operation on the topic expansion identifier, jumping to a topic aggregation page; (interaction on the link(s) takes the reader to a page with further details [topic aggregation page] about the supplemental content/book review, cols 7:36-62 and 21:63-22:14 and fig. 6)
and displaying a second book-related topic on the topic aggregation page; (there are a plurality of links to different types of book-related content [including second book-related topic on the topic aggregation page], fig. 6)
wherein the second book-related topic is a topic belonging to a target dimension among the book-related topics, (book-related topics include different types [target dimension] of topics [topic belonging to a target dimension among the book-related topics], as exemplified in fig. 6, e.g., a summary, commentary, suggested/related content, etc., col 21:63-22:14)
and the target dimension comprises at least one of:
a target content type of a topic content, or a target creation type of the related book. (fig. 6 and col 21:63-22:14)
Independent Claims 10 and 19:
Claims 10 and 19 are directed to an apparatus and storage medium for performing the method of claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 13-14:
Claims 13-14 are directed to an apparatus for performing the methods of claims 4-5 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donnelley (US 9760254 B1) in view of Sou (US 20180190037 A1) and Woods (US 20130179783 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Dameshek; Laurie et al. (hereinafter Dameshek – US 20070245306 A1).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Donnelley further teaches:
wherein the first review information comprises text review information; (the review is of textual content [text review information], col 9:59-10:9, e.g., a “text book”, col 8:63-64)
and displaying the first review information on the book reading interface of the first book comprises: (displaying book-related links, fig. 6 and col 21:63-22:1, e.g., on John’s e-reader device [book reading interface], col 21:40-51)
extracting key text information from the text review information; (information about the book is obtained from [extracting] more detailed review information [from text review information] data store(s), col 10: 28-40, e.g., the high-level identifier of which chapters and what kind of content the link(s) are for, see fig. 6)
displaying the key text information in a review display area other than the display area of the first book in the book reading interface, (e.g., the breakpoint page, which isn’t a book page [a review display area other than the display area of the first book] for displaying the links, e.g., includes high-level identifiers of which chapters and what kind of content the link(s) are for [key text information], see fig. 6)
and displaying a text expansion identifier; (there are a plurality of links [text expansion identifier] to different types of book-related content, fig. 6, e.g., items 608-620)
and in response to a triggering operation on the text expansion identifier, displaying the text review information […] (interaction [triggering operation] with the link(s) takes the reader to a page with further details about the supplemental content/book review [displaying the text review information], cols 7:36-62 and 21:63-22:14 and fig. 6)
Donnelley does not appear to expressly teach, but Dameshek teaches:
that the triggering operation results in review information being displayed “in the review display area” (a clickable data element triggering the expanding or collapsing of data on a page, Abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Donnelley to include that the triggering operation results in review information being displayed “in the review display area”, as taught by Dameshek.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the flexibility and efficiency of the method, by providing flexible display that allows large amounts of information to fit within a limited screen space, Dameshek Abstract and ¶¶ 5 and 20.
Claim 15:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Claim 15 is directed to an apparatus for performing the method of claim 6 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donnelley (US 9760254 B1) in view of Sou (US 20180190037 A1), Woods (US 20130179783 A1), and Dameshek (US 20070245306 A1), as applied to claims 6 and 15 above, and further in view of Mbenkum; Ernest V. et al. (hereinafter Mbenkum – US 20120324392 A1).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Donnelley does not appear to expressly teach, but Mbenkum teaches:
wherein the method further comprises:
in response to that the triggering operation on the text expansion identifier is not detected and a reading operation on a target chapter of the first book is detected, acquiring second review information matching the target chapter; (a book reading interface including next page navigation button, ¶ 40 and fig. 4:412, and includes a chapter comments and page note comments display section [supplemental information], ¶¶ 18 and 32 and fig. 4:440,450. Since, a simultaneous multi-touch operation on more than one button is not contemplated in Donnelley as modified, when a navigation to next page is detected, it is interpreted that it occurs “in a case where the triggering operation on the text expansion identifier is not detected” reading operation [next page])
wherein the target chapter is another chapter after the chapter that has been read; (next page navigation button, ¶ 40 and fig. 4:412)
determining a designated chapter position of the target chapter in the book reading interface; (determine to navigate to a next page based on interaction with button 412, ¶ 40, e.g., to first page of a chapter.)
wherein the designated chapter position is an area other than a chapter content of the target chapter in the book reading interface; (content area 410 is separate for area for displaying the chapter and/or page comments sections 440/450, fig. 4)
and displaying the second review information at the designated chapter position. (chapter and/or page comments sections 440/450 [supplemental information], fig. 4.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Mbenkum to include wherein the method further comprising: in a case where the triggering operation on the text expansion identifier is not detected and a reading operation on a target chapter of the first book is detected, acquiring second review information matching the target chapter; wherein the target chapter is another chapter after the chapter that has been read; determining a position of a designated chapter in the book reading interface; wherein the position of the designated chapter is an area other than a chapter content of the target chapter in the book reading interface; and displaying the second review information at the position of the designated chapter, as taught by Mbenkum.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usefulness of the method by displaying most useful information about a book, including user generated information, at a page-level, Mbenkum, ¶ 20.
Claim 16:
The rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Claim 16 is directed to an apparatus for performing the method of claim 7 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donnelley (US 9760254 B1) in view of Sou (US 20180190037 A1) and Woods (US 20130179783 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Carnahan; Jeffrey Douglas et al. (Carnahan – US 20090091578 A1).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Donnelley does not appear to expressly teach, but Carnahan teaches:
wherein displaying the first review information on the book reading interface of the first book comprises: determining whether a review display area other than a display area of the first book in the book reading interface meets a display requirement, wherein the display requirement is met when the first review information can be displayed on the same book reading interface with part of a chapter content of the chapter that has been read; and in response to that the display requirement is met, displaying the first review information in the review display area of the book reading interface. (in the case where primary content is displayed on a display device, the device recognizes that there is underutilized display space [meets a display requirement] on the device and displays secondary information together with the primary information, Abstract and ¶¶ 3 and 17-19 and figs. 1A-C. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to displaying the chapter content and review information on the same interface when a display requirement is met.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Donnelley to include wherein displaying the first review information on the book reading interface of the first book comprises: determining whether a review display area other than a display area of the first book in the book reading interface meets a display requirement, wherein the display requirement is met when the first review information can be displayed on the same book reading interface with part of a chapter content of the chapter that has been read; and in a case where the display requirement is met, displaying the first review information in the review display area of the book reading interface, as taught by Wong.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the efficiency of the method by optimizing the use of available space within the reading interface, Carnahan ¶¶ 1-3, and presenting secondary information (such as Donnelley’s a review information) related to the primary content (e.g., portion of book chapter) concurrently, Carnahan ¶ 50 and figs. 1A-C.
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Donnelley-Carnahan further teaches:
wherein displaying the first review information on the book reading interface of the first book comprises: in response to that the display requirement is met, displaying a book detail extension identifier in the review display area of the book reading interface, (Donnelley teaches review information may be presented to the user as one or more links [a book detail extension identifier], cols 7:36-62 and 21:63-22:14 and fig. 6. inasmuch as “a topic expansion identifier” is described below as triggering operation, herein, it is broadly interpreted as included a button or icon to view more details related to the book, such as a link/hyperlink. For “in the review display area of the book reading interface” see modification by Carnahan for claim 8, which teaches displaying primary and secondary information on the same display)
and in response to a triggering operation on the book detail extension identifier, (Donnelley teaches interaction on the link(s) takes the reader to a page with further details about the supplemental content/book review, cols 7:36-62 and 21:63-22:14 and fig. 6)
jumping to a book detail page, wherein the book detail page comprises at least one of: information about an author of the first book, update information of the first book, rating information of the first book or the review of the first book (interaction on the link(s) takes the reader to a page with further details [topic aggregation page] about the supplemental content/book review [review information of the first book], cols 7:36-62 and 21:63-22:14 and fig. 6. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to requiring the displaying of review information).
Claims 17-18:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Claims 17-18 are directed to apparatuses for performing the methods of claims 8-9 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim Objection(s), and 112(a)/(b) rejections are overcome by claim amendment.
Applicant's 103 arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the applicant argues that their method provides specific types of book reviews tailored to reading progress, offering either spoiler-preventing insights for unfinished books or in-depth discussions for finished ones. The applicant asserts that, unlike Donnelley, this approach meets evolving user needs through distinct, progress-based review content, Remarks Pg(s) 17-18.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
Donnelley teaches recognizing that a user has reached the end of a chapter––which extends to any chapter, including a final chapter––and displaying associated supplemental content only at that specific stop-read position or breakpoints, cols 3:58-4:17,6:11-23 and Donnelley Claim 2. Furthermore, breakpoints are configured to correspond to chapter endings (whether predefined or user-selected) precisely to avoid revealing material prematurely before the user reaches the required reading progress milestone, cols 1:60-2:52,8:64-9:1, and this supplemental content includes such as book commentary/review, associated with a stop-read position for a reading group, e.g., indicative of completion of chapters 1-3, Donnelley Claim 2 and cols 3:58-4:17.
As such, contrary to the applicant’s allegation, Donnelley successfully teaches tailoring book reviews to reading progress by utilizing chapter-ending breakpoints to display associated commentary or reviews only after the user reaches that specific stopping point, thereby preventing premature spoilers.
Second, the applicant argues that Sou, a pre-produced 3D media system for physical books, is fundamentally different from the present application's user-generated text content. Furthermore, Sou lacks specific technical implementation details for text-based content processing, and a person skilled in the art would lack motivation to adapt its general concept to the present application's text display scenario, Remarks Pg(s) 19-20.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
The applicant attacks Sou individually for not teaching textual content, but one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Sou is used to teach that the book-related contents are different based on in response to that the reading mode is the first reading mode, or in response to that the reading mode is the second reading mode, wherein the second reading mode reflects that a last chapter of the book is read. Specifically, it suggests this by teaching a system that provides supplemental binocular stereoscopic content that enhances the user experience by offering additional, immersive visual information during the reading of a physical book, Abstract and ¶ 10, wherein the different types of content is dynamically triggered based on the reader's current progression position in the story, e.g., when a user has finished reading the book (last chapter of the book is read), creating a contextualized, active augmentation of the printed material, ¶¶ 9 and 103.
Third, the applicant argues that the amended claims are patentable because prior art, including Woods, Dameshek, Mbenkum, and Carnahan, fails to disclose or suggest the specific, spoiler-preventing sorting logic for e-book reader reviews. The invention's unique technical effect of separating user-generated content based on reading progress––displaying only chapter reviews until the book is finished––is not taught in the prior art, nor would a person skilled in the art have the motivation to combine these disparate, conventional technologies to create the claimed solution, Remarks Pg(s) 20-21.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
As explained for arguments 1 and 2 above, the prior art covers the same concept of separating user-generated content based on reading progress––displaying only chapter reviews until the book is finished, which results in not displaying certain content prematurely.
Fourth, the applicant relies on the above arguments to allege patentability of remaining claims. Remarks Pg(s) 21.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Zucker; Arnold et al. US 20140085196 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing A secondary content distribution system and method is described, the system and method including a receiver for receiving a plurality of differing versions of secondary content from a provider, each one of the differing versions of the secondary content being associated with at least one of a reading mode, Abstract.
Havard; Amanda Meredith US 20130104072 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing A number of elements 108 are shown to indicate the distinct pages within a chapter or section of the interactive book. One of these elements 110 designates the current page being viewed. Thus, in this fashion one can determine their progress within a particular chapter or section of the interactive book, ¶ 46 and fig. 8.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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 at (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 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights