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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to the amendment filed on 05/26/2026.
In the instant Amendment, claims 3 and 5-6 were canceled; Claims 1, 7, 10 and 12 have been amended. Claims 1 and 10 are independent claims. Claims 1-2, 4 and 7-12 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
The objections to claims 1 and 10-11 are withdrawn as the abstract has been amended.
While Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive, in attempt to accelerate the process of prosecution, the Examiner applies new ground(s) of rejections to reject claims 1-2, 4 and 7-12. The Examiner reserves the right to re-apply previous recited reference (i.e., Ferguson et al., US 2016/0057154) in next ground(s) of prosecution when needed.
The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be further amended and details in the specification be incorporated to distinguish the claimed invention over prior art of record. Should the Applicant desire an interview to further clarify the claim interpretation/rejections, please contact the Examiner at (571) 270 3230 to schedule an interview.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first receiving module, configured to receive;” and “display module configured to display;” recited in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xi et al. (“Xi,” US 2018/0077542), published on Mar. 15, 2018.
Regarding claim 1, Xi discloses an interface displaying method (Fig. 4-8, 9A-9B and 10A-10B), comprising:
receiving a first preset operation triggered based on a showing interface, wherein the showing interface comprises at least one target content associated with a preset theme, and the at least one target content is a content posted by target users, wherein the showing interface is a non-instant messaging interface (pars. 0136-0141; Fig. 4-8 and 9A; “required groups” and “my groups” are displayed on the GUI 401; selecting the first tab 911 labeled “Chat” accesses the messaging area of the exemplary group CS 2100); and
displaying a related interface of a group in response to the first preset operation, wherein the related interface of the group comprises a session interface of the group, the session interface of the group is an instant chat interface, users in the group engage an instant group chat (pars. 0136-0141; Fig. 9A; selecting the first tab 911 labeled “Chat” accesses the messaging area of the exemplary group CS 2100; displaying instant group chats 914, 915 and 916; users may also post messages themselves by entering their message in text box 917, and submitting it to the group by selecting the “Send” button 918),
wherein users in the group are associated with the target users (pars. 0139-0141; Fig. 9A; chat messages of within the group are displayed on the GUI 401).
Regarding claim 2, Xi discloses the interface displaying method according to claim 1, wherein the users in the group are all or a portion of the target users (pars. 0139-0141; Fig. 9A; member’s names are displayed on the group chats).
Regarding claim 4, Xi discloses the interface displaying method according to claim 1, wherein the first preset operation includes:
a first operation of triggering a first control displayed on the showing interface (pars. 0136-0141; Fig. 9A; selecting the first tab 911 labeled “Chat” accesses the messaging area of the exemplary group CS 2100; displaying instant group chats 914, 915 and 916); or
a second operation of sliding the showing interface along a first direction.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is directed to an interface displaying apparatus corresponding to the interface displaying method recited in claim 1. Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is directed to an electronic device corresponding to the interface displaying method recited in claim 1. Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the interface displaying method recited in claim 1. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
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.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi et al. (“Xi,” US 2018/0077542), published on Mar. 15, 2018, in view of Thall et al., (US 2021/0136025), published on May 06, 2021.
Regarding claim 7, Xi discloses the interface displaying method according to claim 4, wherein the related interface of the group is the session interface of the group; and the displaying the related interface of a group in response to the first preset operation (pars. 0136-0141; Fig. 9A; selecting the first tab 911 labeled “Chat” accesses the messaging area of the exemplary group CS 2100; displaying instant group chats 914, 915 and 916) comprises:
Xi does not explicitly disclose displaying the session interface of the group in response to the second operation of sliding the showing interface along the first direction.
However, Thall disclose a digital content sharing method including the steps of displaying the session interface of the group in response to the second operation of sliding the showing interface along the first direction (Thall: 0115-0119, 0243-0247 and 0296-0297; Figs. 13-16; user is able to view next/previous post using swipe forward/backward).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Thall with the system/method of Xi. One would have been motivated to enable user to view next posts or previous posts using swipe forward or swipe backward operation (Thall: pars. 0115-0119).
Regarding claim 8, Xi and Thall disclose the interface displaying method according to claim 7.
The combination of Xi and Thall further discloses:
receiving a second preset operation triggered based on the session interface of the group (Xi: pars. 0136-0141; Fig. 9A; selecting the first tab 911 labeled “Chat” accesses the messaging area of the exemplary group CS 2100; Thall: 0115-0119, 0243-0247 and 0296-0297; Figs. 13-16; viewing next/previous posts); and
switching the session interface of the group to the showing interface in response to the second preset operation (Xi: pars. 0136-0141; Fig. 9A; selecting the first tab 911 labeled “Chat” accesses the messaging area of the exemplary group CS 2100; Thall: 0115-0119, 0243-0247 and 0296-0297; Figs. 13-16; viewing next/previous posts).
The motivation is the same that of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 9, Xi and Thall disclose the interface displaying method according to claim 8.
The combination of Xi and Thall further discloses:
a third operation of triggering a second control displayed on the session interface (Xi: pars. 0136-0141; Fig. 9A; selecting the first tab 911 labeled “Chat” accesses the messaging area of the exemplary group CS 2100; Thall: 0115-0119, 0243-0247 and 0296-0297; Figs. 13-16; viewing next/previous posts); or
a fourth operation of sliding the session interface in a second direction (Thall: 0115-0119, 0243-0247 and 0296-0297; Figs. 13-16; viewing next/previous posts).
The motivation is the same that of claim 7 above.
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 extension fee 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH K PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3230. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM (EST).
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, William L Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. 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.
/LINH K PHAM/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights