DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is FINAL.
This office action is in responsive to communication(s):
Amendment filed on 4/28/2026.
Application filed on 12/1/2023 with effective filing date of 12/20/2022 based on Chinese application CN202211640003.2.
The status of the claims is summarized as below:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent claims.
In the amendment, claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-18, 20 are amended.
The objections to claims 2-8, 12-15, 17-20 in the previous office action are respectfully withdrawn in light of the filed amendment.
Claims 4, 6-10, 14, 16 are objected to as allowable subject matter if incorporated into the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the amendment made to claim(s) 1-8, 10-13,15-18, 20 in the amendment filed on 4/28/2026.
The objections to claims 2-8, 12-15, 17-20 in the previous office action are respectfully withdrawn in light of the filed amendment.
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are directed to newly amended language which is now rejected with newly cited paragraphs with previously cited art Li.
The applicant argued on pages 11-14 for the newly amended limitation that the prior cited art Li teaches a different method of determining candidate topics than the instant application. The examiner thanks the applicant for the detailed comparison of the invention and cited art. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the conclusion that Li does not teach newly amended limitation, and notes that the amended limitation requires either one of the two conditions “as long as at least one of the topic information of the initial topic” or “the second books included in the initial topic matches the first book” to be true to select the initial topic as the target topic. Li ([0088, 0097-0098] Fig. 4) teaches the displayed target topic (selected from list of initial topics) has a second book - book recommendation for topic 1 - matches Book A. Accordingly, Li still teach the amended limitations.
The examiner suggests to further narrow the claim language, for example, what does “match” in the claim limitation encompass, to further advance prosecution.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed on 4/28/2026 has been considered and approved by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 2-8, 12-15, 17-20 in the previous office action are respectfully withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11-13, 15-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US Pub 2025/0103635 , from IDS filed 3/4/2024, hereinafter Li).
Per claim 1, Li teaches:
A book page display method, comprising: (abstract: a topic recommendation method);
in response to a trigger operation on a first book, displaying a book page of the first book; ([0054, 0088] Fig. 4 shows the end of a chapter of a book, where the last page of the chapter 1 (book page of a first book) is displayed in response to a page turning operation, reaching the end of the chapter 1 (trigger operation));
displaying, in the book page, a target topic matched with the first book; wherein at least one of the topic information of the target topic or second books included in the target topic is matched with the first book, ([0088] Fig. 4 shows recommended topics at the bottom of the page; [0048, 0079] Fig. 1 shows at step S102, a target recommended topic matching the target book (first book) is selected, where step S103 shows that recommended books (second books) under target topic at least includes the target book (second books matching the first book)
wherein the target topic is selected from a plurality of candidate topics, ([0095-0096] Fig. 5: each recommended book may have multiple target recommended topics, where the target topic may be updated to reflect an association between the target recommended topic and the recommended book)
and in initial topic can be as the candidate topic as long as at least one of the topic information of the initial topic or the second books included in the initial topic matches the first book. ([0088, 0097-0098] Fig. 4 shows book recommendation for topic 1 (second books included in the initial topic) matches Book A (first book), where target recommended topic may be selected based on the topic attribute information or the matched first recommended books).
Per claim 2, Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the book page is a reading home page of the first book; ([0095] Fig. 5 shows a reading home page of a list of books including first book) the displaying, in the book page, the target topic matched with the first book, comprises: displaying, in the book page, the target topic in a position adjacent to a display position of introduction information of the first book. ( [0095] Fig. 5 shows the recommended topic(s) – “Topic 1” – is/are displayed next to the book’s intro such as cover of “Book a”).
Per claim 3, Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein, subsequent to displaying the target topic matched with the first book, the method further comprises at least one of: in response to a trigger operation directed to the target topic, ([0104-0106] trigger operation on target recommended topic can display the topic post, such as shown in Fig. 7) displaying a target second book matched with the first book among the second books included in the target topic, or, displaying a target topic review matched with the first book among the topic reviews included in the topic information of the target topic. ([0106] user selection of “topic 1” (trigger operation on the target topic) can display a target topic post such as shown in Fig. 7 (b), where other related books (display a target second book) can be recommended by users and displayed; or posts related to “topic 1” are displayed such as reply by user B (a topic review matching first book “Book a”)).
Per claim 5, Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the target topic is determined in such a manner as follows:
determining first plot information related to book plot from topic reviews included in topic information of each initial topic, ([0062-0064] classification information such as book genres (first plot information) corresponding to each topic (such as posts with book recommendations) can be matched with target book genres) and determining second plot information of a second book included in the initial topic; ([0062-0064] classification information such as book genres (second plot information) corresponding to books discussed under each topic can be matched with target book genres) and screening out the target topic matched with third plot information of the first book ([0063] book genre corresponding to the target book) from the initial topics, according to the first plot information and the second plot information. ([0062-0063] when topic genre or book genre discussed in a topic match with target book genre, the topic is considered to have high matching degree with the target book).
Per claim 11, claim 11 is a system claim comprising a processor ([0124] Fig. 9 processor 10), a memory ([0124] Fig. 9 memory 20), and include limitations that are substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Per claims 12-13, 15, claims 12-13, 15 include limitations that are substantially the same as claims 2-3, 5 respectively, and are likewise rejected.
Per claim 16, claim 16 is a medium claim ([0124] Fig. 9 memory 20), and include limitations that are substantially the same as claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Per claims 17-18, 20, claims 17-18, 20 include limitations that are substantially the same as claims 2-3, 5 respectively, and are likewise rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7-10 are dependent from claim 4, based on their dependency on claim 4, they are also objected to as allowable subject matter.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 11 and 16 respectively; and are substantially the same as claim 4, and are objected to under the same rationale.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific feature of selecting the target topic from initial topics: where each topic including at least one topic review, where topic information of each initial topic and second books included in each initial topic is matched with the first book respectively to determine candidates topics, where candidate topics are selected based on matching at least one of topic information or second books; then the target topic is selected among candidate topics based on topic interaction data and book reading conversion rate under each candidate topic, in combination with features from the base claim, are not found in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
US Patents & Publications
US 20050166136 A1
Capps, Steve et al.
Media playing method in universal media player, involves intercepting and directing incoming media to universal media player including interface located in frame of internet browser if incoming media is playable
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support by shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections, See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHOEBE X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034. 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.
/PHOEBE X PAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights