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 in responsive to communication(s):
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 3/4/2024, 2/4/2025, 5/14/2025 comply/complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609, and therefore has/have been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has/have been considered as to the merits.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: DISCUSSION TOPIC SELECTION IN BOOK PAGE DISPLAY METHOD AND APPARATUS, COMPUTER DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2-8, 12-15, 17-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities (emphasis added by examiner):
Per claim 2, claim 2 depend from claim 1, and recites “… the displaying, in the book page, a target topic matched with the first book …”, where it should be “the target topic”, as claim 1 already references “a target topic”.
Claims 3, 5, 12-13, 17-18, 20 all include similar issue as claim 2 – an instance of “a target topic”, where it should be “the target topic”.
Per claim 3, claim 3 depend from claim 1, and recites “… displaying a target second book matched with the first book among the second books associated with the target topic, or displaying a target topic review matched with the first book among the topic reviews included in the topic information”, where the term the topic review was not previously mentioned, and the other two bolded terms do not use terms consistent with the parent claim.
The claim is interpreted as “… displaying a target second book matched with the first book among the second books included with the target topic, or displaying a target topic review matched with the first book among topic reviews included in the topic information of the target topic.
Claims 13, 18 include similar issues as claim 3, and are likewise objected.
Per claim 4, claim 4 depend from claim 1, and recites “ …wherein the topic information includes at least one topic review; … matching the topic information of initial topics and second books included in the initial topics with the first book respectively to determine candidate topics; wherein each of the candidate topics is matched with at least one of the topic reviews and the second books … “, where there is no antecedent basis for topic information of initial topics and the topic reviews, as they are not mentioned previously in this or parent claims.
The claim is interpreted as “… wherein the topic information of the target topic includes at least one topic review; … matching topic information of initial topics and second books included in the initial topics with the first book respectively to determine candidate topics; wherein each of the candidate topics is matched with at least one of topic reviews of the initial topics and the second books included in the initial topics”.
Claim 14, 19 include similar issues as claim 4, and are likewise objected.
Per claim 5, claim 5 depend from claim 1, and recites “ …determining first plot information related to the book plot from the topic reviews included in the topic information of each initial topic … ”, where there are no antecedent basis for each of the highlighted terms. The claim is interpreted as “…determining first plot information related to book plot from topic reviews included in topic information of each initial topic …”.
Claims 15 and 20 include similar issues, and are likewise objected.
Per claim 6, claim 6 depend from claim 4, and recites
“… wherein the topic information of each of the initial topics is matched with the first book to determine candidate topics according to the following steps: based on the topic title information, the topic introduction information and the matched book category as indicated by the topic information of each of the initial topics, determining first characteristic information corresponding to the initial topic;
based on the book title, the book introduction information and the book category of the first book, determining second characteristic information of the first book…”. Each of the highlighted terms except the first one lack antecedent basis. The first highlighted term has already been mentioned in claim 4 has antecedent basis.
The claim is interpreted as:
“… wherein the topic information of each of the initial topics is matched with the first book to determine the candidate topics according to the following steps: based on topic title information, topic introduction information and matched book category as indicated by the topic information of each of the initial topics, determining first characteristic information corresponding to the initial topic;
based on book title, book introduction information and book category of the first book, determining second characteristic information of the first book…”.
Per claim 7, claim 7 depend from claim 4, and recites “… wherein the second books included in each of the initial topics are matched with the first book to determine candidate topics according to the following steps…”, where there is already a previously mentioned candidate topics in claim 4, there should be “the” in front of the highlighted term.
Additionally, the term “in the case” (or “if”) implies contingent limitation which is not required to be performed when the condition(s) preceding it are not met. (MPEP 2111.04 section II). The examiner suggests to amend the term to “when”, or “in accordance to a determination …”.
Per claim 8, claim 8 depend from claim 4, and recites “… wherein the topic information of each of the initial topics is matched with the first book to determine candidate topics according to the following steps …”, where candidate topic is previously mentioned in claim 4. The limitation should be “… wherein the topic information of each of the initial topics is matched with the first book to determine the candidate topics according to the following steps …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 the 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)).
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, a 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 a 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 associated with the target topic, or, displaying a target topic review matched with the first book among the topic reviews included in the topic information. ([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 the book plot from the topic reviews included in the 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 a 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 6-10 are dependent from claim 4, based on their dependency on claim 4, they are also objected to as allowable subject matter.
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
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