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 .
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 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 Office Action is in response to an AMENDMENT entered 10/29/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are pending.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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: “a receiving module, configured to…, an acquisition module, configured…, a generation module, configured…, a sending module, configured to…” in claim 9.
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 § 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 1, 5-11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20170132668 A1 to Myers in view of US Patent No. 9,336,528 B2 to Beaton and in further view of US Pub. No. 20200005387 A1 to RAV-ACHA.
As to claims 1 and 9-11, Myers discloses a product information processing method, wherein the method is applied to a first client, and the method comprises:
receiving an instruction for generating, with one click, a video stream for a product (Myers ¶0019, 0022-0026, 0040-0041, 0043-0044, receiving user instruction/selection for generating “one-click” feature a video advertisement related to a service);
acquiring basic information of the product in response to the instruction (Myers ¶0019, 0022-0026, 0040-0041, 0043-0044, 0048-0051, receiving information/data of the service in response to the user instruction/selection); and
generating, with one click, the video stream of the product based on the basic information of the product, and sending the video stream of the product to a server so that the server posts the video stream of the product in a second client (Myers ¶0016, 0019, 0022-0026, 0040-0041, 0043-0044, 0048-0051, 0054, generating with the “one click” the video advertisement related to the service based on the information/data of the service and transmitting the video advertisement of the service to the interface 106/automatic posting component 102 where the interface/component are computer related entities such as a server and the interface 106/automatic posting component 102 transmitting the video advertisement to a plurality of different clients).
wherein the video stream of the product comprises at least part of images of the same product played in rotation in a card style.
Myers does not expressly disclose wherein the video stream of the product comprises at least part of images of the same product played in rotation in a card style.
Beaton discloses wherein the video stream of the product comprises at least part of images of the product played in rotation in a card style (Beaton Fig. 2B & 9, col. 22, ll. 1-31, product panel cycling)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Myers by wherein the video stream of the product comprises at least part of images of the product played in rotation in a card style as disclosed by Beaton. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide the user for display a cycling product interface and a detailed product information thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
Myers and Beaton do not expressly disclose at least part of images of the same product.
RAV-ACHA discloses at least part of images of the same product (RAV-ACHA Fig. 3, 4, ¶0032, 0073, photos of the same product, different photo angles of the same product (e.g., front vs. rear in a car), the same product at different colors or variants).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Myers and Beaton by at least part of images of the same product as disclosed by RAV-ACHA. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide the user for display different images of the same product allowing the user to view in different angles thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
As to claims 5 and 16, Beaton discloses wherein the video stream of the product further comprises a detail page tag of the product and/or a store tag of the product, the detail page tag of the product is configured to trigger access to a detail page of the product (Beaton Fig. 2B & 9. col. 17 lines 30-col. 18 lines 2, further details of the product), and the store tag of the product is configured to trigger access to a homepage of a store to which the product belongs (Beaton Fig. 2B & 9. col. 5 lines 24-51, hyperlink for the webpage of a merchant for the product)
As to claims 6 and 17, Myers discloses wherein acquiring the basic information of the product comprises: acquiring the basic information of the product from a storage module, wherein basic information of commodities is stored in the storage module; and/or receiving the basic information of the product uploaded by a user (Myers ¶0019, 0022-0027, 0029-0031, 0040-0041, 0043-0044, 0048-0051, receiving information/data of the service from the data store, where the data store stores the information data of the service/product and the information/data is user defined).
As to claims 7 and 18, Myers discloses wherein the basic information of the product comprises a title of the product, a price of the product, and an image of the product (Myers ¶0019, 0022-0027, 0029-0031, 0040-0041, 0043-0044, 0048-0051, text, price and image of the service/product and RAV-ACHA Fig. 3, 4, ¶0023, 0038, 0046, 0049, 0072, product name).
As to claims 8 and 19, Myers discloses wherein the basic information of the product further comprises a content description of the product and/or a piece of background music of the product (Myers ¶0019, 0022-0027, 0029-0031, 0040-0041, 0043-0044, 0048-0051, descriptive data about the service/product details).
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 2-4, 13-15, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20170132668 A1 to Myers in view of US Patent No. 9,336,528 B2 to Beaton in further view of US Pub. No. 20200005387 A1 to RAV-ACHA and in further view of US Pub. No. 20180302683 A1 to Lu.
As to claims 2 and 13, Beaton discloses wherein the video stream of the product comprises all images of the same product played in rotation in a card style (Beaton Fig. 2B & 9, col. 22, ll. 1-31, product panel cycling and RAV-ACHA Fig. 3, 4, ¶0032, 0073, photos of the same product, different photo angles of the same product (e.g., front vs. rear in a car), the same product at different colors or variants), and the video stream of the product is configured to trigger access to a detail page of the product (Beaton Fig. 2B & 9. col. 17 lines 30-col. 18 lines 2, further details of the product).
Myers, Beaton and RAV-ACHA do not expressly disclose a dynamically changeable price of the product, and a dynamically changeable title of the product
Lu discloses a dynamically changeable price of the product, and a dynamically changeable title of the product (Lu ¶0041, 0045, 0064, video stream of product with tag information that is changeable to different name/title and prices where the tag is updated by the seller at the server).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Myers, Beaton and RAV-ACHA by dynamically changeable price of the product, and a dynamically changeable title of the product as disclosed by Lu. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to allow the user/seller to change the price/title information thereby enhancing the users/sellers experience.
As to claims 3 and 14, Myers, Beaton and RAV-ACHA does not expressly disclose sending a changed price of the product to the server after a change in a price of the product occurs so that the server updates the price of the product in the video stream of the product posted in the second client based on the changed price of the product.
Lu discloses sending a changed price of the product to the server after a change in the price of the product so that the server updates the price of the product in the video stream of the product posted in the second client based on the changed price of the product (Lu ¶0041, 0045, 0064, video stream of product with tag information that is changeable to different name/title and prices where the tag is updated by the seller at the server).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Myers, Beaton and RAV-ACHA by sending a changed price of the product to the server after a change in the price of the product so that the server updates the price of the product in the video stream of the product posted in the second client based on the changed price of the product as disclosed by Lu. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to allow the user/seller to change the price/title information thereby enhancing the users/sellers experience.
As to claims 4 and 15, Myers, Beaton and RAV-ACHA does not expressly disclose sending a changed title of the product to the server after a change in a title of the product occurs so that the server updates the title of the product in the video stream of the product posted in the second client based on the changed title of the product.
Lu discloses sending a changed title of the product to the server after a change in a title of the product so that the server updates the title of the product in the video stream of the product posted in the second client based on the changed title of the product (Lu ¶0041, 0045, 0064, video stream of product with tag information that is changeable to different name/title and prices where the tag is updated by the seller at the server).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Myers, Beaton and RAV-ACHA by sending a changed title of the product to the server after a change in a title of the product so that the server updates the title of the product in the video stream of the product posted in the second client based on the changed title of the product as disclosed by Lu. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to allow the user/seller to change the price/title information thereby enhancing the users/sellers experience.
As to claim 20, Lu discloses sending a changed price of the product to the server after a change in a price of the product occurs so that the server updates the price of the product in the video stream of the product posted in the second client based on the changed price of the product (Lu ¶0041, 0045, 0064, video stream of product with tag information that is changeable to different name/title and prices where the tag is updated by the seller at the server).
As to claim 21, Lu discloses sending a changed title of the product to the server after a change in a title of the product occurs so that the server updates the title of the product in the video stream of the product posted in the second client based on the changed title of the product (Lu ¶0041, 0045, 0064, video stream of product with tag information that is changeable to different name/title and prices where the tag is updated by the seller at the server).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 13-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 related to claim 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to Applicant's arguments:
Claim 9 includes limitations which are alleged by the Examiner to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), on the asserted basis that they use non-structural terms coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is allegedly not preceded by a structural modifier.
The Office action asserts that claim 9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Applicant respectfully disagrees. However, in order to expedite the prosecution, Applicant will not provide any additional comments contrary to the Office action's alleged opinion that claim 9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Examiners Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. 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: “a receiving module, configured to…, an acquisition module, configured…, a generation module, configured…, a sending module, configured to…” in claim 9. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 date of this final action.
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 have been rejected.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYU CHAE whose telephone number is (571)270-5696. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00am -4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NASSER MOAZZAMI can be reached on 571-272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYU CHAE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426