DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are grainy in nature, rendering them unclear. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
1. Claims 3-4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “the host of the live room being in one of top N1 positions in a host sequence ranked in a descending order of numbers of followers“ and “the host of the live room being in one of top N2 positions in a host sequence ranked in a descending order of historical sale parameters“. The presence of the “top N1” and “top N2” terms renders the claim unclear. It is unclear what position these terms represent.
Similarly, Claim 4 recites “the product information being in one of top N3 positions in a product information sequence ranked in a descending order of reference parameters”. The presence of the “top N3” term renders the claim unclear. It is unclear what position this term represents
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the scope of the claims.
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.
2. Claims 1-12, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-12, 14, 15 are directed to providing product information, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-12 recite a method and at least one step. Claim 14 recites an electronic device comprising at least one processor and memory. Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, apparatus, manufacture).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which product information is provided, including through the facilitation of consumer-to-business interaction, in the following limitations:
obtaining product information of at least one product corresponding to at least one live room;
in response to a display policy being satisfied, displaying information of the live room and the product information;
in response to detecting a first trigger, presenting detailed information corresponding to the product information,
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to provide product information in response to a policy being satisfied, and detailed information in response to detecting a trigger. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
in a first application,
a second interface in a first interface of the first application, the second interface including,
for the second interface, displaying an interface for.
displaying an interface of a live room, the interface of the live room including the product information.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“in a first application”, “a second interface in a first interface”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (displaying). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 95-111 describe various examples of general-purpose technologies that can be used to implement the invention. Paragraphs 153-155 indicate that while the exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Displaying information (i.e., transmitting data over a network or presenting offers) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 14 and 15 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-13
Claims 2-13 set forth additional recitations that merely embellish the abstract idea of providing product information, including facilitating interaction between consumers and businesses. While the claims set forth the additional limitations of further displaying interfaces, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(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.
3. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11-12, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 20220239988 A1, hereinafter Yang).
Regarding Claim 1
Yang discloses a product display method, comprising:
obtaining, in a first application, product information of at least one product
in response to a display policy being satisfied, displaying a second interface in a first interface of the first application, the second interface including information of the live room and the productto recognize item, second interface displayed to show detailed product information)
in response to detecting a first trigger for the second interface, displaying an interface for presenting detailed information corresponding to the product information, and/or displaying an interface of a live room
Regarding Claims 14, 15
Claims 14 and 15 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claim 2
Yang further discloses:
wherein the display policy being satisfied comprises at least one of the following: a number that the second interface is terminated being less than first threshold, and a second trigger being received. (Yang: see at least ¶59-65, fig. 4-6: in response to function control being selected to render a menu including an option to recognize item, second interface displayed to show detailed product information)
Regarding Claim 4
Yang further discloses:
wherein the at least one product information satisfies at least one of following: a reference parameter corresponding to the product information being greater than or equal to the first threshold, and the product information being in one of top N3 positions in a product information sequence ranked in a descending order of reference parameters. (Yang: at least ¶143: link for product presented if recommendation index above a target)
Regarding Claim 5
Yang further discloses:
if the second interface is displayed in the first interface of the first application, ceasing displaying the second interface in the first interface of the first application in response to a corresponding policy being satisfied. (Yang: see at least ¶151: display of live stream interface closed in response to jumping to the resource exchange interface)
Regarding Claim 6
Yang further discloses:
wherein the corresponding policy be satisfied comprises at least one of the following: receiving a terminating operation on the second interface, and sale of products corresponding to the at least one product information being ended. Yang: see at least ¶151: display of live stream interface closed in response to jumping to the resource exchange interface)
Regarding Claim 7
Yang further discloses:
wherein the product information in the second interface is displayed in a switching way, product information before switching comprise product information of a product sale of which is ended, and product information after switching comprise product information of a product sale of which is not ended. (Yang: see at least ¶145, 151: historical and active item information may be displayed)
Regarding Claim 11
Yang further discloses:
wherein the product information further indicates a recommendation reason or information of a host corresponding to the product information, and the recommendation reason comprises following the target host, the target host being a host to which a product corresponding to the product information belongs. (Yang: see at least ¶33, 49, 50: viewer follows host by logging into live stream; host recommends items captured by camera in livestream)
Regarding Claim 12
Yang further discloses:
wherein the product information comprises an image and a text, the text being superimposed on the image. (Yang: see at least fig. 6)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Jabara et al. (US 20170064349 A1, hereinafter Jabara).
Yang discloses the claimed invention except for the following, which Jabara teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the at least one live room satisfies at least one of following: a number of followers of a host of the live room being greater than or equal to a second threshold, the host of the live room being in one of top N1 positions in a host sequence ranked in a descending order of numbers of followers, a historical sale parameter of the host of the live room being greater than or equal to a third threshold, and the host of the live room being in one of top N2 positions in a host sequence ranked in a descending order of historical sale parameters. (Jabara: see at least ¶29: minimum number of followers to start broadcast stream)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Yang to have included the features of Jabara, since such a modification would enabled sending live streaming videos to a fan base (Jabara: see at least ¶7).
5. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Liu et al. (US 20220277384 A1, hereinafter Liu).
Regarding Claim 8
Yang discloses the claimed invention except for the following, which Liu teaches in a similar environment:
displaying a third interface in the first interface of the first application, the third interface being a sub-interface of the first interface, and the third interface comprising first information of at least one discounted product and second information at least one other product, wherein the first information, and the second information are alternately arranged in the third interface. (Liu: see at least ¶134, 135: welfare products displayed in interface at discounted price less than a first price)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Yang to have included the features of Liu, since such a modification would have inspired audience users to take corresponding actions to meet the allowable transaction condition of the target item (Liu: see at least ¶168).
Regarding Claim 9
Yang discloses the claimed invention except for the following, which Liu teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the product information further comprises discount information of a product. (Liu: see at least fig. 22, ¶168: discounted price of welfare purchase displayed based on eligibility)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Yang to have included the features of Liu, since such a modification would have inspired audience users to take corresponding actions to meet the allowable transaction condition of the target item (Liu: see at least ¶168).
Regarding Claim 10
Yang discloses the claimed invention except for the following, which Liu teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the product information further indicates a sale progress of a product, when a sold parameter of a product is greater than or equal to a fourth threshold and less than the fifth threshold, the sale progress is corresponding to the sold parameter; and when the sold parameter of the product is greater than or equal to a fifth threshold, the sale progress is corresponding to an unsold parameter (Liu: see at least fig. 18: sales progress)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Yang to have included the features of Liu, since such a modification would have inspired audience users to take corresponding actions to meet the allowable transaction condition of the target item (Liu: see at least ¶168).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al. (US 20230291949 A1) discloses a virtual live streaming method and apparatus, device and storage medium, including enabling users to launch live rooms for promoting products.
Ding et al. (US 20230018134 A1) discloses a live streaming processing method performed by an electronic device, including facilitating line shopping from a host via a live room.
"How live streaming influences purchase intentions in social commerce: An IT affordance perspective." (PTO-892) discloses the state of live stream shopping regarding customer influence.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688