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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 2-6, 8-13, and 16-19 are objected to for minor informalities.
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: Feed Interface of Social Networking Platform with Multimedia Frame-Breaking Element.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6, 8-13, and 16-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2, 9, and 16, “wherein the displaying the at least one object breaking out of the frame and becoming a multimedia frame-breaking element of an interactive object comprises” should read “wherein the displaying the at least one object breaking out of the frame and becoming the multimedia frame-breaking element of the interactive object comprises:”
In claims 3 and 10, “wherein the displaying the multimedia frame-breaking element in the feed interface in response to an interactive operation on a triggering hot spot of the first social content comprises” should read “wherein the displaying the multimedia frame-breaking element in the feed interface in response to the interactive operation on the triggering hot spot of the first social content comprises”
In claims 4, 11, and 17, “a multimedia frame-breaking element of an interactive object” should read “the multimedia frame-breaking element of the interactive object”
In claims 5, 12, and 18, “a multimedia frame-breaking element of an interactive object” should read “the multimedia frame-breaking element of the interactive object”
In claims 6, 13, and 19, “wherein the displaying an information presenting interface associated with the interactive object in replacement of the feed interface in response to a triggering operation on the multimedia frame-breaking element comprises” should read “wherein the displaying the information presenting interface associated with the interactive object in replacement of the feed interface in response to the triggering operation on the multimedia frame-breaking element comprises”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the first social content" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation of “first social content” or “a first social content” in the claim. It is therefore unclear to what “the first social content” refers, such as if it refers to the “at least one object displayed within a frame of the feed interface” or to another element.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the same limitation and are rejected for the same reasoning. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected due to their dependencies.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LIU (US 2023/0185444 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, LIU teaches an interface display method performed by a computer device, the method comprising: (Fig. 4, computing device 400, and interface displayed method illustrated in Figs. 2a-i.)
displaying a feed interface of a first user account of a social networking platform, the feed interface comprising at least one object displayed within a frame of the feed interface; (¶ 3, 27, 41, Fig. 2a: An “information flow” is presented to a user, which is a feed interface of a social networking platform as illustrated in Fig. 2a. The feed interface includes at least one object, such as the “BMW” advertisement that is displayed within a frame.)
in response to an interactive operation on the first social content, (¶ 51, 53, 81, Fig. 2b: A preset gesture, such as a long press, is performed by a user on the advertisement in the social media information feed.)
displaying the at least one object breaking out of the frame and becoming a multimedia frame-breaking element of an interactive object with a body contour of the at least one object remaining within the frame; (¶ 64-66, 82: Fig. 2c-d: A car is an object breaking out of the frame and becoming a multimedia frame-breaking element with a special effect of the car coming out of the frame. As illustrated in Fig. 2c, the car begins to be displayed in a new layer and part of the car remains within the frame. A body contour of the object therefore remains within the frame as it becomes the multimedia element.)
and displaying an information presenting interface associated with the interactive object in replacement of the feed interface in response to a triggering operation on the multimedia frame-breaking element. (¶ 69-71: “in response to a trigger operation of the user on the first preset button, displaying a detailed information page of the target information entry”. ¶ 83-85, Figs. 2e-i: The multimedia element includes a button that can be pressed that results in the display of an information presenting interface associated with the interactive objective, namely “a detailed information page” (¶ 70) or an advertisement image or video as illustrated in Fig. 2i.)
Claim 8 is directed to a computer device and Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, but they otherwise recite the same limitations as claim 1. Claim 8 and Claim 15 are therefore rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 2, LIU further teaches wherein the displaying the at least one object breaking out of the frame and becoming a multimedia frame-breaking element of an interactive object comprises: displaying the multimedia frame-breaking element in the feed interface in response to an interactive operation on a triggering hot spot of the first social content corresponding to a portion of the interactive object. (¶ 51: “a preset prompt message is displayed on an upper layer of the target information entry to prompt a user to input corresponding gesture; the user is guided by the target information entry of the information flow to input a preset gesture operation, so as to enhance interaction with the user”. ¶ 62-65, Figs. 2b-c: The multimedia frame-breaking element in the feed interface as illustrated in Fig. 2c is displayed in response to an interactive operation, namely a long press, on a triggering hot spot corresponding to a portion of the interactive advertisement, as illustrated in Fig. 2b.)
Claim 9 and Claim 16 recite the same limitations as claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 3, LIU further teaches wherein the displaying the multimedia frame-breaking element in the feed interface in response to an interactive operation on a triggering hot spot of the first social content comprises: displaying an individual multimedia frame-breaking element of the interactive object in the feed interface in response to the interactive operation on the triggering hot spot, the individual multimedia frame-breaking element being configured to present an individual visual image of the interactive object; (The claim only requires one of the options. LIU in Fig. 2c teaches displaying an individual multimedia frame-breaking element (i.e. the car) of the interactive object in the feed interface (i.e. the advertisement) in response to the triggering operation shown in Fig. 2b. See ¶ 61-64 and 81-82. The display of the car breaking out of the frame is an individual visual image of the interactive object.)
or displaying a combined multimedia frame-breaking element of the interactive object in the feed interface in response to the interactive operation on the triggering hot spot, the combined multimedia frame-breaking element being configured to present a combined visual image of the interactive object and another object other than the interactive object.
Claim 10 recites the same limitations as claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 4, LIU further teaches wherein the displaying the at least one object breaking out of the frame and becoming a multimedia frame-breaking element of an interactive object comprises: displaying a frame-breaking special effect of the interactive object in the feed interface in response to the interactive operation on the first social content, the frame-breaking special effect being configured to indicate a dynamic display process that the interactive object moves out of the frame of the feed interface. (¶ 82: “a special effect animation of the product information corresponding to the automobile advertisement is played… an animation from virtual to real of a car approaching may also be played in full-screen”. Also see ¶ 64-65 and Figs. 2c-d: The frame breaking special effect is the car approaching. A shown in Figs. 2c-d: the special effect animation is a dynamic display process indicating that the interactive object has moved out of the frame of the feed interface.)
Claim 11 and Claim 17 recite the same limitations as claim 4 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 5, LIU further teaches wherein the displaying the at least one object breaking out of the frame and becoming a multimedia frame-breaking element of an interactive object comprises: displaying the multimedia frame-breaking element in the feed interface in response to one of a continuous pressing operation on the first social content or a sliding operation on the first social content or a single-click/tap operation on the first social content or a double- click/tap operation on the first social content or a touch operation on the first social content. (¶ 53, 58, 93, Fig. 2b: The multimedia frame-breaking element illustrated in Fig. 2c is displayed in response to a preset gesture, such as a long press as shown in Fig. 2b. Other examples of gestures disclosed include clicking, double-clicking, or dragging (i.e. sliding or touch) operations.)
Claim 12 and Claim 18 recite the same limitations as claim 5 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 6, LIU further teaches wherein the displaying an information presenting interface associated with the interactive object in replacement of the feed interface in response to a triggering operation on the multimedia frame-breaking element comprises: (¶ 69-71: “in response to a trigger operation of the user on the first preset button, displaying a detailed information page of the target information entry”. ¶ 83-85, Figs. 2e-i: The multimedia element includes a button that can be pressed that results in the display of an information presenting interface associated with the interactive objective, namely “a detailed information page” (¶ 70) or an advertisement image or video as illustrated in Fig. 2i.)
displaying an interactive special effect corresponding to the interactive object in response to the triggering operation on the multimedia frame-breaking element; (¶ 84: “in a case where the immediate test drive button is clicked by the user, the server can designate the current user from a viewer of the advertisement to a potential user of the advertisement and can display more cool effect of the car, thereby improving the viewing experience of the user. FIG. 2(f) and FIG. 2(g) illustrate the car drift effect in a case where the immediate test drive button is clicked by the user. FIG. 2(f) and FIG. 2(h) illustrate the car straight-line effect in a case where the immediate test drive button is clicked by the user.” In response to a triggering operation on a button of the multimedia frame-breaking element, a special effect is displayed. For example, the special effect is a car moving or drifting across the screen.)
and canceling display of the interactive special effect, and displaying the information presenting interface. (¶ 85: “after the special effect automobile animation is played to the end, as shown in FIG. 2(i), the playing interface of the multimedia information may be closed, and then the automobile advertisement information entry may be played” After the special effect plays out, the “a detailed information page” (¶ 70, Fig. 2i), i.e. an information presenting interface, is displayed.)
Claim 13 and Claim 19 recite the same limitations as claim 6 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 2023/0185444 A1) in view of COHEN (US 2016/0371751 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, LIU teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 7 depends.
LIU does not teach wherein the information presenting interface associated with the interactive object varies based on a location of the triggering operation on the multimedia frame-breaking element.
However, COHEN, which is similarly directed to interactive advertisements including displaying floating ads (¶ 52) and special effects on ads that break out of the frame of an ad slot (Figs. 7B-C) teaches wherein the information presenting interface associated with the interactive object varies based on a location of the triggering operation on the multimedia frame-breaking element. (¶ 145, 147-150, 154, Figs. 7B-E, I: The location of a triggering operation on an interactive ad, namely whether the triggering operation is on a right side or on a left side, results in displays of different information presenting interfaces. For example, interaction on the right side or a rightward swipe results in a detailed information display for an advertisement as shown in Fig. 7D. Interaction on the left side or a leftward swipe results in display of a feedback form as shown in Fig. 7I.)
Before the effective filing data of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the display of a frame-breaking multimedia element for engaging user interaction with advertisement in a social media feed as taught by LIU by varying the display of information associated with the advertisement based on a location or direction of a user operation, as taught by COHEN. Since the references are similarly directed to interactive advertisements with frame-breaking animations, the combination would have yielded predictable results. This would have amounted to incorporating the display of different information responsive to the type of trigger operation on the advertisement shown in COHEN into the social media platform taught by LIU, such as enabling the different trigger inputs during the multimedia display shown in Figs. 2e-h of LIU rather than a single button. Furthermore, COHEN (¶ 122-124) teaches that incorporation of these features would improve a user experience by guiding the user through interaction with an ad while also helping advertisers by providing valuable feedback and improving the relevancy of ads presented to a user.
Claim 14 and Claim 20 recite the same limitations as claim 7 and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Gupta (US 2025/0014287 A1) teaches a user interface with frame breaking special effects. (¶ 64, Fig. 3B)
Trinh (US 2013/0254036 A1) teaches different types of ads including banner ads, floating ads, and expanding ads. (¶ 47-49)
Geer (US 2012/0215646 A1) teaches an interactive advertising unit that “breaks the simulated boundaries of a media player” in a “visually stimulating and unexpected manner” (¶ 39, 42)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI RAFAT OKASHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 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, SCOTT BADERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/RAMI R OKASHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights