Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 02 February 2026.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02 February 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims recite, “…a third interaction operation…; …a first interaction operation…; and …a second interaction operation…” which is a typographical error of, “…a first interaction operation…; …a second interaction operation…; and …a third interaction operation…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
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.
Claims 1-8; 9-16; and 17-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-8; 9-16; and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1 recites:
displaying an information flow in an information flow interface of a first user account, wherein:
the information flow includes a plurality of pieces of social content published by at least one content publishing account the first user account subscribes to and arranged in a chronological order, and
the information flow interface comprises a first piece of the plurality of pieces of social content;
displaying, on the information flow interface, a second piece of the plurality of pieces of social content, the second piece of the plurality of pieces of social content being published later than the first piece of the plurality of pieces of social content;
displaying, on the information flow interface, an information flow advertisement comprising a first display object, the first display object representing an exterior of a physical building observed from a first perspective;
in response to receiving first interaction including receiving a comment inputted by the first user account that meets a preset condition, displaying real-scene interaction interface of a second display object associated with the first display object, wherein the second display object represents an interior of the physical building; and
displaying scene pictures of the second display object corresponding to different observation manners on the real-scene interaction interface, the scene pictures comprising recommended objects located in the physical building.
Therefore, the claim is directed to “recommending objects from an advertisement”, which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity. “Recommending objects from an advertisement” is considered to be is a method of organizing human activity because it is a marketing/sales activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s): a computer device having a touch display screen; in response to receiving a first swiping operation on the touch display screen; in response to receiving a second swiping operation on the touch display screen; in response to receiving a first interaction operation associated with the first display object updating the first display object; in response to receiving a second interaction operation on the first display object, displaying a real-scene interaction interface of a second display object; and in response to receiving a third interaction operation on the second display object, displaying scene pictures. These additional elements merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 further recite the additional element(s): different observation manners on the real-scene interaction interface (claim 2); Icons of the recommended objects (claim 3); a broadcast icon (claim 4); an employee icon (claim 5); a thumbnail map (claim 6); online visitors (claim 7); and receiving a trigger operation on a statement component (claim 8). These additional element(s) individually and in combination merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 2-8 are ineligible.
Claim(s) 9-16 are parallel in nature to claim(s) 1-8. Accordingly claim(s) 9-16 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Claim(s) 17-20 are parallel in nature to claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5. Accordingly claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 February 2026, with respect to 35 USC § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claims 1-8; 9-16; and 17-20, the applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity.
In response to the argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues the application relates to the field of human-computer interaction, and in particular, to an information flow advertisement-based interaction method and apparatus, a device, and a medium. As stated in MPEP 2106.04(a), the sub-grouping of methods of organizing human activity, “encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.” The use of the apparatus, device and a medium does not preclude the claims from falling into the subgrouping of methods of organizing human activity. Furthermore, Applicant cites to paragraph [0010] of the specification indicating that the claimed invention enriches human-computer interactions, thereby increasing a frequency of interaction between a user account and the information flow advertisement and increasing a click-through rate of the information flow advertisement. The benefit of increasing a click-through rate of an advertisement flow is merely increasing a user’s engagement of advertising. As noted in the rejection above, an advertisement is a marketing/sales activity which falls under the grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The increasing the user’s engagement towards an advertisement flow is a benefit to the abstract idea. Furthermore, the click through rate is how the user’s engagement towards the advertisement flow is measured, which is merely applying the abstract idea to a computerized environment, and does not integrate an abstract idea to a practical application. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RESHA DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
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.
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648