DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 2/13/2026.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/13/2026 has been entered.
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, with Claims 3 and 12 being newly canceled.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 13 and 19 are newly amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, 10 and 19 recite “used to indicate chapter” and “does not comprise last chapter”, wherein it seems “used to indicate a chapter” and “does not comprise a last chapter” was intended.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite “a first reading mode or a second mode”. Here, although, in context, the “second mode” refers to a reading mode, to further improve the clarity and consistency of the claim language, “a second mode” should be change to “a second reading mode”. Claims 10 and 19 have similar issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1, 3-10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The representative independent claim 1 recite(s) a method for displaying book review, include acquiring reading progress information of a first book; wherein the reading progress information is used to indicate chapter that has been read by a user of the first book; determining, based on the reading progress information, whether a reading mode of the first book is a first reading mode or a second mode, determining, among book-related contents of the first book, book-related contents matching the reading mode of the first book, wherein in a case where the reading mode is a first reading mode, the book-related contents comprise book review information of the first book, and in a case where the reading mode is a second reading mode, the book-related contents comprise book-related topics of the first book 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; and displaying the first review information on a book reading interface of the first book which are concepts performed in the human mind and is grouped as “mental processes” (namely collecting, analyzing, and displaying information related to a book review). Note that an “interface”, fundamentally, is a point of interaction or communication between two distinct things. In the context of books and reading, the "interface" can be understood as the way in which a reader interacts with the physical book, e.g., the physical book itself, to access and understand its content. Furthermore, even if displaying book review information on printed books is not a common practice, the same is certainly possible without a computer, e.g., handwriting the information on the book or on sticky notes attached to the book. A such, the claimed “book reading interface” is reflective of an interaction involving various elements beyond the computer realm. Here, the claimed steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the mind. It has been recognized by the courts that claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the abstract idea without any significant additional elements. The additional element of “on a display screen of a computer device performed by a processor of the computer device” and “on the display screen of the computer device” are reflective of mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As mentioned above, the claim does not include any meaningful additional elements. Similarly, the additional computer related limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
A method for displaying book review on a display screen of a computer device performed by a processor of the computer device, comprising:
acquiring reading progress information of a first book;
wherein the reading progress information is used to indicate chapter that has been read by a user of the first book;
determining, based on the reading progress information, whether a reading mode of the first book is a first reading mode or a second mod, determining, among book-related contents of the first book, book-related contents matching the reading mode of the first book, wherein in a case where the reading mode is a first reading mode, the book-related contents comprise book review information of the first book, and in a case where the reading mode is a second reading mode, the book-related contents comprise book-related topics of the first book 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;
and displaying the first review information on a book reading interface of the first book on the display screen of the computer device.
The core steps of "acquiring reading progress information," "determining... whether a reading mode... is a first reading mode or a second mode," and "determining... contents matching the reading mode" could be performed by a human mind, perhaps with the aid of a pen and paper. A person could track their reading progress, decide whether they want a standard review or topical discussion, and select the corresponding content from a collection.
Under the MPEP, the method described is likely directed to an abstract idea, specifically a mental process and/or a method of organizing human activity, and the additional elements may not amount to "significantly more" to make it patent-eligible.
The analysis under MPEP follows a two-step process:
Step 1: Is the claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
The claim is a "method... performed by a processor," which falls into the statutory category of a "process". Thus, the analysis proceeds to Step 2.
Step 2A: Does the claim recite a judicial exception (e.g., abstract idea)?
The claim describes a method for selectively displaying book content based on a user's reading progress. This concept can be categorized as:
Mental Process: The core steps of "acquiring reading progress information," "determining... whether a reading mode... is a first reading mode or a second mode," and "determining... contents matching the reading mode" could be performed by a human mind, perhaps with the aid of a pen and paper. A person could track their reading progress, decide whether they want a standard review or topical discussion, and select the corresponding content from a collection.
Method of Organizing Human Activity: The method involves organizing how a user interacts with book-related content, which relates to the presentation of information, a concept that can be considered an abstract idea.
Because the claim recites these concepts, the analysis moves to Step 2B to determine if there is "significantly more" to make the claim eligible.
Step 2B: Does the claim amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea?
The additional elements in the claim must integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, providing an "inventive concept".
The claim includes a generic computer, a processor, a display screen, and a "book reading interface". These elements are described at a high level of generality and appear to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of computer devices and software.
The use of a processor to "perform" the method is essentially "apply it" to a generic computer, which is not enough to add significantly more.
The "displaying the first review information on a book reading interface" is also a generic use of a display and interface, not a specific improvement to computer technology itself.
The claim, as written, does not appear to recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer or a novel technical solution to a technical problem beyond merely implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing device.
Conclusion
Per the MPEP, the method can be interpreted as being an abstract idea because the underlying logic of matching content to a user's reading mode is a mental process/method of organizing information. The use of a generic computer and display to implement this idea does not, without significantly more detail (e.g., a specific, unconventional technological improvement to the interface, data processing, or device operation), transform it into patent-eligible subject matter.
The examiner would likely issue a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, explaining why the claim is directed to an abstract idea and why the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept.
Independent claims 10 and 19 are directed a computer apparatus and storage medium for accomplishing the method of claim 1, and are ineligible for similar reasons as provided above for claim 1.
Additionally, the claims recite computer components, at a high level, e.g., “A computer apparatus comprising a processor, a memory, and a bus, wherein the memory stores machine-readable instructions executable by the processor, when the computer apparatus is running, the processor communicates with the memory through the bus, and when the machine-readable instructions are executed by the processor, the processor is configured to” (claim 10) and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein a computer program is stored on the computer-readable storage medium, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, the processor is configured to” (claim 19).
However, these additional limitations are not effective to integrated the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application, because these limitations are reflective of mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are reflective of mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Neither instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, nor merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea can provide an inventive concept. Claims 10 and 19 are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-9 and 12-18 simply further recites the abstract idea and/or are reflective of mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and are therefore also not patent eligible for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 (and one or more of the depend claims) recite several instances of the phrase “chapter that has been read”. However, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe how a chapter is considered one that "has been read". See corresponding 112(b) rejection below for how the phrase is interpretated herein.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite that “wherein the first reading mode is used to indicate that the chapter that has been read does not comprise last chapter and the second reading mode is used to indicate that the chapter that has been read comprises the last chapter”. The Instant Specification lacks sufficient description to clarify a circular dependency in the claims, where reading mode determines progress, and simultaneously, progress determines reading mode. Specifically, the specification states that first/second reading modes indicate whether the last chapter is included, ¶¶ 65 and 77 (as pub), yet it also states that these modes are determined by assessing if current progress matches the last chapter, ¶¶ 43 and 46 (as pub). This contradictory logic where a "last chapter" (defined in updated books as the last available, ¶ 41) is both the indicator and the determined result, is not sufficiently explained, rendering the claim scope unclear.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite “the book-related topics of the first book refer to discussion topics associated with the first book in its entirety in the application”. However, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe this limitation. E.g., ¶ 60, as published, recites “the book-related topics of the first book can be a discussion topics associated with the first book in the application, wherein the book-related topics can be the topics included in the book circle of the first book, or it can be the first book-related topic published in the topic square of the application”. This paragraph suggests that discussion topics are not necessarily about a “book in its entirety" because it defines the topics as being either a subset included in a specific "book circle" or a singular "first book-related topic" published in a topic square, rather than requiring a comprehensive discussion of the whole book.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite “the review information of the first book refers to the review information posted by the user who reads the first book in the application with respect to part of the chapter contents of the chapter”. However, the Instant Specification fails to sufficiently describe who the user is that posted the review information or how the review information is posted.
Claims 4-9 and 13-18 are rejected as they depend on claim(s) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 112(2nd)
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10, and 13-19 is/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.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 (and one or more of the depend claims) recite several instances of the phrase “chapter that has been read”. Here, in an ebook context, stating a chapter "has been read" is ambiguous because it fails to distinguish between simply opening the chapter (starting it) and actually reaching the final page (completing it), leaving it unclear whether the reader has simply accessed the chapter’s content or completed it (e.g., by accessing, or scroll past, all pages in the chapter). For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as including accessing any portion of the chapter. Correction required.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite “does not comprise last chapter…comprises the last chapter”. Here, stating that a chapter comprises or does not comprise the "last chapter" is ambiguous because this can generally be interpreted either as the “final chapter” in the book or simply the “last chapter” that a reader has finished reading so far. Furthermore, the Instant Specification also adds at least a third possible interpretation for books that are still being updated, where the "last chapter" is defined as the “last updated” chapter (¶ 41, as pub). Since the Instant Specification also states “the chapter that has been read may be the last chapter of the first book, or may not be the last chapter of the first book” (Instant Specification ¶ 40, as pub), for purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to referring to the last chapter of the book, and not the chapter that was last read or last updated. Correction required.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite that “wherein the first reading mode is used to indicate that the chapter that has been read does not comprise last chapter and the second reading mode is used to indicate that the chapter that has been read comprises the last chapter”. The limitation(s) is logically flaw in context of the claims because it creates a circular dependency, because the claims use the reading progress (e.g., last/final chapter of a book) to determine the reading mode, and here, simultaneously attempts to use that same reading mode to indicate the progress. If the reading mode is merely a reflection of where the reader is in the book, it cannot independently be “used to” verify or “indicate” that the current chapter is not the last chapter, as the mode is dependent on the progress (not vice versa). For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as referring to the “the first reading mode” being reflective of a fact “that the chapter that has been read does not comprise last chapter” and “the second reading mode” being reflective of the fact “that the chapter that has been read comprises the last chapter”. Correction required.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite the limitation “the application” in two instances each. There is a lack of antecedent basis in the claims for the limitation. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as referring to in the computer device/apparatus. Correction required.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite “the book-related topics of the first book refer to discussion topics associated with the first book in its entirety in the application”. Here, this is unclear because there is a lack of correspondence between the specification and the claims. E.g., in ¶ 60, Instant Specification, as published, recites “the book-related topics of the first book can be a discussion topics associated with the first book in the application, wherein the book-related topics can be the topics included in the book circle of the first book, or it can be the first book-related topic published in the topic square of the application”. This text suggests that discussion topics are not necessarily about a “book in its entirety" because it defines the topics as being either a subset included in a specific "book circle" or a singular "first book-related topic" published in a topic square, rather than requiring a comprehensive discussion of the whole book. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). See MPEP 2173.03. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed topics associated with a book, in part or its entirety.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite “the review information of the first book refers to the review information posted by the user who reads the first book in the application with respect to part of the chapter contents of the chapter”. Here, it is unclear who the user is that posted the review information or how the information is posted. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as referring to other users that posts book reviews visible by user that as read a chapter of the first book. Correction required.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite the limitation "the review information" in the phrase “the review information of the first book refers to the review information posted by the user who reads the first book in the application with respect to part of the chapter contents of the chapter”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, in Claims 1, 10 and 19, the phrase “the review information of the first book refers to the review information posted by the user who reads the first book in the application with respect to part of the chapter contents of the chapter” is followed by “and the book-related topics of the first book refer to discussion topics associated with the first book in its entirety in the application”. Here, this seems to imply review information and book-related topics are different from each other, but this is unclear because there is a lack of correspondence between the specification and the claims. E.g., in ¶ 51, of the Instant Specification, as published, recites:
“first review information can be related book review of the chapter that has been read of the first book, or book-related topics of the first book, or recommendation information for other books related to the first book”.
Here, this suggests that review information can be either a book review or book-related topics, and not that they are separate things. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets that “review information” refers to either one, or similar supplemental information for the book. Correction required.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite the limitation “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”. Here, it is unclear if “first review information” the same or different from the “book review information” and “the review information” mentioned in preceding limitations. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to the same review information. Correction required.
Claims 1, 10 and 19, as amended, include a version of the limitation(s): “wherein in a case where the reading mode is a first reading mode, the book-related contents comprise book review information of the first book” and “in a case where the reading mode is a second reading mode, the book-related contents comprise book-related topics of the first book”. Here this is unclear because combining these terms “book review information” and “book-related topics”. The terms "book-related topics" and "book review information" likely overlap, as book review information is a type of book-related topic, creating ambiguity concerning the content that is referred to in the two different reading modes.
Claims 4-9 and 13-18 are rejected as they depend on claim(s) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103The 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
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. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Donnelley; Samuel Ytzhak et al. (hereinafter Donnelley – US 9760254 B1), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Donnelley (US 9760254 B1) in view of Stathacopoulos; Paul T. (hereinafter Stathacopoulos – US 20150245101 A1) in view of Sou; Kaei (hereinafter Sou – US 20180190037 A1) and Woods; Thomas Steven et al. (hereinafter Woods – US 20130179783 A1).
Reading progress information
wherein the reading progress information is used to indicate chapter that has been read by a user of the first book
reading mode
determining, based on the reading progress information, whether a reading mode of the first book is a first reading mode or a second mode
Reading modes indicate:
wherein the first reading mode is used to indicate that the chapter that has been read does not comprise last chapter and the second reading mode is used to indicate that the chapter that has been read comprises the last chapter
Reading progress information>>> chapter read>>> reading modes>>> answer’s if it is last chapter.
As claimed, the reading progress information indicates chapter read by user, and is used to determine a reading mode
Independent Claim 1:
Donnelley teaches:
A method for displaying book review 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 “book review”. Herein, it is broadly interpreted, according to the plain meaning of the term, that a “book review” include detailed analysis information about a book, 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 chapter that has been read by a user of the first book; (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 chapter that has been read by a user of the first book)
determining, based on the reading progress information, whether a reading mode of the first book is a first reading mode or a second 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)
wherein the first reading mode is used to indicate that the chapter that has been read does not comprise last chapter (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 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 “the first reading mode” being reflective of a fact “that the chapter that has been read does not comprise last chapter”)
and the second reading mode is used to indicate that the chapter that has been read comprises the last chapter, (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”)
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)
[…]wherein in a case where the reading mode is the first reading mode, the book-related contents comprise book review information 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)see below
((other OR supplemental OR additional) near2 content OR comment$6 OR summar$3 OR review$1)
Skim mode (first mode) book review
Instant Specification [0062] For the skim reading mode, among the review information of the first book, the review information matching the reading progress information can be determined as the first review information. For the deep mode, among the book-related topics of the first book, the book-related topic matching the reading progress information can be determined as the first review information.
Topic used to identify
[0083] During specific implementation, the topic identifier of each book-related topic in the book-related topics of the first book can be acquired; wherein, the topic identifier can be used to indicate at least one of the following: the title of the book corresponding to the book-related topics, the topic content type of the book-related topics (for example, character-based topic or plot-based topic), and the creation type of books related to the book-related topic (for example, fan works, secondary creation works and so forth).
book-related contents
book-related contents includes: review information of the first book and/or the book-related topics for first book, ¶ 57
book-related topics:
[0060] Here, the book-related topics of the first book can be a discussion topics associated with the first book in the application, wherein the book-related topics can be the topics included in the book circle of the first book, or it can be the first book-related topic published in the topic square of the application.
[…]and in a case where the reading mode is the second reading mode, 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.)
Instant Specification [0060] Here, the book-related topics of the first book can be a discussion topics associated with the first book in the application, wherein the book-related topics can be the topics included in the book circle of the first book, or it can be the first book-related topic published in the topic square of the application.
the review information of the first book refers to the review information posted by the user who reads the first book in the application 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 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 in its entirety in the application; (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. Furthermore, because the commentary can be provided “for the e-book”, col 3:58-65, and readers can access the entire book, col 15:33-36, it inherently follows that they can also provide commentary for the entire book [discussion topics associated with the first book in its entirety in the application])
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 information matching the reading progress information from all the book review information of the first book; and
determining, among the optional review information, one piece of the optional review information that meets a review quality requirement for the chapter that has been read, ()
112(b)? “Alternative” information is a mandatory replacement that forces a choice between two or more specific options, whereas “optional” information is non-essential, supplemental data that can be omitted entirely without changing the core requirement.
and determine the first review information based on the one piece of the optional review information that meets the review quality requirement,
wherein acquiring optional review information matching the reading progress information from all the book review information of the first book comprises:
extracting review key information of each review information of all the book review information,
determining a matching degree between the review key information and the chapter that has been read,
and determining the review information having a matching degree greater than or equal to a preset matching degree threshold as optional review information and
in a case where 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, wherein the preset sorting parameters include at least one of: topic popularity, topic views, and relevancy with the first book.
As mentioned above, Donnelley is interpreted as teaching that the book-related content comprises book review information “in a case where the reading mode is a first reading mode” and that the book-related contents comprises book-related topics “in a case where the reading mode is a second reading mode”.
However, alternatively, assuming arguendo that Donnelley does not appear to expressly teach these limitations, Stathacopoulos teaches:
that the book-related content comprises book review information “in a case where the reading mode is a first reading mode” and that the book-related contents comprises book-related topics “in a case where the reading mode is a second reading mode” (one more types of supplemental content can be presented if they are related to a current progression point in a media asset, ¶ 84, like electronic books, ¶ 23. It was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that, in applying Stathacopoulos to Donnelley, the progression points in Donnelley may represent that the reading mode [100% completion or not 100% completion]).
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 book-related content comprises book review information “in a case where the reading mode is a first reading mode”, and that the book-related contents comprises book-related topics “in a case where the reading mode is a second reading mode”, as taught by Stathacopoulos.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the flexibility/versatility of the method, e.g., displaying a specific, and different types of supplemental content that are associated with respective progression points, Stathacopoulos, ¶ 84.
Donnelley does not appear to expressly teach, but Sou teaches:
that the book-related contents are different based on in a case where the reading mode is the first reading mode, or in a case where 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 a case where the reading mode is the first reading mode, or in a case where 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. NNNNNNNN does not appear to expressly teach, but NNNNNNNN teaches:
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:
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 information matching the reading progress information from all the book review information of the first book; (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)
and determining, among the optional review information, one piece of the optional review information that meets a review quality requirement for the chapter that has been read, ()(the ranking/sorting of the related items on the list, ¶ 106, is accomplished based 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 information that meets the review quality requirement, , ()(the ranking/sorting of the related items on the list, ¶ 106, is accomplished based 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”])
wherein acquiring optional review information matching the reading progress information from all the book review information of the first book comprises:
extracting review key information of each review information of all the book review information, (the candidates for the list are selected based on how related they are, as explained above, and the same is determined based on “related content characteristics” [extracting review key information], ¶ 106)
determining a matching degree between the review key information and the chapter that has been read, (which have to meet a minimum threshold [“matching degree between the review key information and the chapter”], ¶ 106)
and determining the review information having a matching degree greater than or equal to a preset matching degree threshold as optional review information; (the degree is preset based on a profile preferences, ¶ 106)
and in a case where 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 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)
wherein the preset sorting parameters include at least one of: topic popularity, topic views, and relevancy with the first book. (the abovementioned sorting/ranking is done in the context of a personalized content recommendation process, which suggests a relevant content based on how strong the matches/scores are for the related content, ¶¶ 6 and 9 [“relevancy with the first book”]).
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 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 information matching the reading progress information from all the book review information of the first book; and determining, among the optional review information, one piece of the optional review information 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 information that meets the review quality requirement, wherein acquiring optional review information matching the reading progress information from all the book review information of the first book comprises: extracting review key information of each review information of all the book review information, determining a matching degree between the review key information and the chapter that has been read, and determining the review information having a matching degree greater than or equal to a preset matching degree threshold as optional review information; and in a case where 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, wherein the preset sorting parameters include at least one of: topic popularity, topic views, and relevancy with the first book, 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.
wherein the first reading mode is used to indicate that the chapter that has been read does not comprise last chapter ()
and the second reading mode is used to indicate that the chapter that has been read comprises the last chapter, ()
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 NNNNNNN of NNNNNNNN to include wherein the first reading mode is used to indicate that the chapter that has been read does not comprise last chapter, and the second reading mode is used to indicate that the chapter that has been read comprises the last chapter, as taught by NNNNNNNN.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to NNNNNNNNNNN, NNNNN NNN.
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 mode
each of the four “in a case where the reading mode is…” limitations
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 2: (DELETE)
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Donnelley further teaches:
wherein the first review information is determined by:
determining, among the book-related contents of the first book, the book-related content matching the reading progress information; (supplemental content that is provided to the user of the reader, as explained above, is stored in data store containing book-related content, col 10:28-40 and fig 1, providing access to secondary content “associated”[matched] with the stop-read position for the book [book-related content], Abstract and cols 3:58-4:17)
wherein the book-related contents comprise at least one of:
review information of the first book or book-related topics of the first book; (book commentary/review information [review information of the first book], cols 3:58-4:17)
and determining the first review information based on the matched book-related content. (providing access to secondary content “associated”[matched] with the stop-read position for the book [matched book-related content], Abstract and cols 3:58-4:17)
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Donnelley (or Donnelley-Stathacopoulos) further teaches:
wherein acquiring first review information of the chapter that has been read matching the reading progress information from the book-related content matching the reading mode of the first book comprises: (see 102/103 mapping for claim 1)
in a case where the reading mode is a first reading mode, acquiring alternative review information matching the reading progress information from the review information of the first book; (the book includes multiple sections, e.g., chapters, with which different stop-read positions [a first reading mode] and commentaries are associated [acquiring alternative review information matching the reading progress information from the review information of the first book], Donnelley cols 3:58-4:17. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to varying the review information based different reading modes.)
wherein the first reading mode is used to indicate that the chapter that has been read does not comprise last chapter; (e.g., “page 100” indicating the end of Chapter 3 of the e-book ‘The Long Night’”, Donnelley col 13:9-16 and fig. 2:206, which is indicative that the user has completed the reading of Chapter 3 [reading mode], and/or 100% completion of a particular section of the book [also indicative of a reading mode…based on the reading progress information], Donnelley col 14:1-38. Here, a reading progress is used to indicate that the chapter that has been read does not comprise last chapter, at least because it indicates it is at the end of chapter 3 of a book that includes 20 chapters, Donnelley col 3:40-48)
and determining, among the alternative review information, one piece of the alternative review information 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 alternative review information that meets the review quality requirement. (refer again to Donnelley Claim 2 and cols 3:58-4:17. In as much as the book review content is required to be “associated” with the chapter/section, review information meets “a review quality requirement for the chapter”)
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 a case where 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 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) 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 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; (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. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets that the designated chapter area an area for displaying the notes about a chapter and/or page of the chapter. includes the target chapter. Furthermore, the terms “position” and/or “area” in claim 7 are interpreted as including a position within a hierarchy of pages/chapters.)
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 a case where 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 a case where 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 book review information 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 of claim 1 for reciting “A method for displaying book review on a display screen” is overcome by claim amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pages 18-19, filed 2/13/2026, with respect to claim 1 being eligible under Step 2B have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of claims 1-19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's 112(b)/103 arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, and/or are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
112(b):
The applicant contends that both “review information” and “book review information” are different from “book-related topics”. See Remarks Pages 17-18.
The examiner respectfully disagrees:
Although, in a common language, a “book review” could be interpreted as being different from other types of “book-related topics”, the applicant’s own specification refers to the “review information” be including either one of a book review or book-related topics. For example, ¶ 51, as published, recites: “the first review information can be related book review of the chapter that has been read of the first book, or book-related topics of the first book, or recommendation information for other books related to the first book.”
Only place where the phrase “book review information” is mentioned:
[0029] Research has found that with the development of computer technology, novel online reading applications have more and more functions. For example, users can read books online in this application. However, when the user wants to know the relevant book review information of the book, he/she needs to exit the current online reading interface and enter the book review page to view it, which increases the operational complexity of the application and affects the user experience.
and 112(a)/112(b) rejections are overcome with title and claim amendments.
The review information is related to “book review of the chapter”, or book related topics of the book, or recommendation information for other books related to the first book.
[0051] Here, the first review information can be related book review of the chapter that has been read of the first book, or book-related topics of the first book, or recommendation information for other books related to the first book
So, while it appears that book review information can comprise different types of information, such “review of a chapter”, and “book-related topics of the first book”, this doesn’t seem to sufficiently show that “book review information” is different from “book-related topics”. Instead, book review information comprises “book-related topics”. This is significantly different.
101:
First, the applicant submits that “claim 1 clearly defines that the book review is displayed on a book reading interface on the display screen of the computer device, and the steps are performed by a processor of the computer device. Thus, claim 1 cannot reasonably be understood as the way in which a reader interacts with physical book and handwrites the review information on the book” and that it “recites the feature of acquiring the review information from the determined book-related contents”. Remarks Pages 12-13.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, because as explained in 101 rejection section above, these generic computer elements are not sufficient to move the concepts into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the feature also is not sufficient, as explained in 101 rejection section above.
Second, the applicant alleges that “claim 1 as a whole integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application” because “as a whole”, it “is directed to a particular improvement in providing book review on a display screen of a computer device”, specifically, that it “provides a specific improvement over prior method for displaying book review on the display screen resulting in the effect in which users can obtain different types of review information on books according to their reading progress” and/or to significantly more than the abstract idea. Remarks 13-14.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the claims recite an abstract idea (organizing and displaying information) without significantly more, since the additional limitations are reflective of mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Third, the applicant suggests that the instant applicant is similar to Example 40. See Remarks Page 14.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 40, "Adaptive Monitoring of Network Traffic Data," from the USPTO's January 7, 2019 guidance, illustrates the analysis of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claims involving a method and system to optimize network performance. The guidance determined the claims were patent-eligible as they describe a specific technical implementation for adaptively adjusting data collection based on real-time network conditions, constituting an improvement to network monitoring technology. Here, the analysis of book reading progress information and the display of book-related information does not improve the functionality of a computer or network itself, as Example 40 does.
Fourth, the applicant relies on the arguments above.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the above reasons.
103:
First, arguments that attack Donnelley for not teaching some of the previously presented or new limitations or otherwise attack Stathacopoulos are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection and additional references introduced above, and because Stathacopoulos is no longer relied upon.
Second, the applicant attacks Donnelley for not achieving the technical effect presented in a quote starting at the end of page 22 and ending in the first paragraph of Page 23, See Remarks Pages 22-23.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the features in the quote upon which applicant relies (e.g., including but not limited to “the user who has finished reading the first book can view the topics related to books that are discussed and studied in dept from various aspects”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Third, the applicant relies on the above arguments to allege patentability of remaining claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons.
Conclusion
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