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 Office Action is in response to the application 18/572,671 filed on 12/20/2023.
As per the Preliminary Amendment filed on 12/20/2023, Claims 1-12 have been amended. Claims 1-12 have been examined and are pending. This action is made Non Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 10 recite the limitations “A interface,” in the preamble of each claim. It’s suggested that said limitation be amended to “An interface;” (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the limitation “[a] computer-readable storage medium.” To be consistent with discussions in the specification, paragraphs [0080] and [0090] and to avoid any uncertainty in interpreting the claim as non-statutory subject matter, it’s suggested that the aforementioned limitation be further amended to “[a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” or “[a] computer-readable storage medium, which does not include signal medium,” or the like (emphasis added).
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferguson et al., (“Ferguson,” US 2016/0057154), published on Feb. 25, 2016.
Regarding claim 1, Ferguson discloses a interface [sic] displaying method, 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 (pars. 0206-0207 and 0209-0216; Figs. 8C-8D and 9A-9F; group discussion “Parking at Company” displayed in response to receiving a group view selection from the user [i.e., clicking on the “Parking at Company” icon 212-3]); and
displaying a related interface of a group in response to the first preset operation (pars. 2006-2007 and 0209-0216; Figs. 8C-8D and 9A-9F; displaying group name 818, group member 814, group activity message 828 posted by members of the group),
wherein users in the group are associated with the target users (pars. 2006-2007 and 0209-0216; Figs. 8C-8D and 9A-9F; thumbnails of group members 812 displayed on the interface).
Regarding claim 2, Ferguson discloses the interface displaying method according to claim 1, wherein the users in the group are all or a portion of the target users (Figs. 8C-8D and 9A-9F; thumbnails of group members 812 displayed on the interface).
Regarding claim 3, Ferguson discloses the interface displaying method according to claim 1, wherein the related interface of the group includes at least one of a session interface of the group, a creation interface of the group, or an interface for applying to join the group (pars. 0209-0216; Figs. 8C-8D and 9A-9F; displaying comments posted by group members 828, 926-7 and 926-8; pars. 0225-0230; Fig. 11; “join” group icon 1112).
Regarding claim 4, Ferguson 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. 0209-0216; Figs. 8C-8D and 9A-9F; control 804, 838, 840, 842 are displayed); or
a second operation of sliding the showing interface along a first direction (pars. 0209-0216; Figs. 8C-8D and 9A-9F; slide/more icons 840/842).
Regarding claim 5, Ferguson discloses the interface displaying method according to claim 3, wherein the related interface of the group is the creation interface of the group; and the displaying the related interface of a group in response to the first preset operation comprises (Figs. 8C-8D and 9A-9F):
displaying the creation interface of the group in response to the first preset operation, wherein the creation interface is configured to set associated information of the group (pars. 0199-0200 and 0209-0216; Figs. 8C-8D and 9A-9F; group type 816, group information and settings, group name 818, group activity input element 820, etc.,).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson et al., (“Ferguson,” US 2016/0057154), published on Feb. 25, 2016, in view of Cohen, (US 2020/0167699), published on May 28, 2020.
Regarding claim 6, Ferguson discloses the interface displaying method according to claim 5.
Ferguson does not explicitly discloses adding the target user meeting a preset condition to the group.
However, Cohen disclose a method for coordinating event including the step of adding the target user meeting a preset condition to the group (Cohen: par. 0073; the system adds a user to a group for attending the musical HAMILTON, wherein the request indicates user profile match requirements of 25 years old, likes Italian food, and a location in Durham, N.C).
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 Cohen with the system/method of Ferguson. One would have been motivated to add user into a group based on a set of predefined criteria (Cohen: par. 0073).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson et al., (“Ferguson,” US 2016/0057154), published on Feb. 25, 2016, in view of Thall et al., (US 2021/0136025), published on May 06, 2021.
Regarding claim 7, Ferguson discloses the interface displaying method according to claim 3, 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. 0209-0216; Figs. 8C-8D and 9A-9F) comprises:
Ferguson 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 Ferguson. 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, Ferguson and Thall disclose the interface displaying method according to claim 7.
The combination of Ferguson and Thall further discloses:
receiving a second preset operation triggered based on the session interface of the group (Ferguson: pars. 0209-0216; Figs. 8C-8D and 9A-9F; slide/more icons 840/842; 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 (Ferguson: pars. 0209-0216; Figs. 8C-8D and 9A-9F; slide/more icons 840/842; 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, Ferguson and Thall disclose the interface displaying method according to claim 8.
The combination of Ferguson and Thall further discloses:
A third operation of triggering a second control displayed on the session interface (Ferguson: pars. 0209-0216; Figs. 8C-8D and 9A-9F; slide/more icons 840/842; 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 (Ferguson: pars. 0209-0216; Figs. 8C-8D and 9A-9F; slide/more icons 840/842; 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
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Inquiries
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