DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 03/13/2024.
In the instant application, claims 1, 4, 8, 9 and 10 are independent claims; Claims 1-10 have been examined and are pending. This action is made non-final.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 03/13/2024 are acceptable
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/13/2024 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 reception unit that receives log data … ” and “ a computation unit that executes computational processing on the log data….” in claims 4-6.
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 § 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 1-3, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to claims 1 and 10, “A program for causing a computer to function as ….” is being cited. However, in accordance with the instant specification, it appears that the program would reasonably be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as software, per se.
Claims 2-3 and 7 are rejected due to their dependencies of the independent claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed when the 35 U.S.C.101 rejection is resolved.
Examiner’s Statement of reason of Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The present invention is directed to programs, servers, system and method for causing a computer to function as: a display control means for displaying a part of content on a display and switching the part of content displayed on the display by moving the displayed part either in a first direction or a second direction according to a user operation; a recording means for recording display position information together with a timestamp in log data, the display position information indicating the part of content displayed on the display; a normalization means for performing normalization processing on the log data, in which the time elapsed since the start of viewing, indicated by the log data, is normalized by the total time of displaying the content on the display and viewing the content, and in which the display position information indicated by the log data is normalized by total length information of the content; and a transmission means for transmitting the log data subjected to the normalization processing to an external device.
Independent claims 1, 4, 8, 9 and 10 when considered as a whole, are allowable over the prior art of record.
The closest prior arts can be found: Sidhu et al. (US 2023/031948) teaches a system and method for quantifying viewer engagement with a video playing on a display in a respondent household includes an agreed upon camera arrangement to monitor viewer engagement. The system and method includes the ability to determine what sources of content are being accessed by the household, and other data such as time of viewing, and source of content. Takami (US 2012/0290971) teaches a method for displaying content in an active display region of a terminal apparatus, and information relating to the display of said content when the content scrolls in accordance with a scrolling operation performed by a user and content identifying information for identifying the content are obtained from the terminal apparatus and it is determined whether or not the user of the terminal apparatus is interested in the content identified by the content identifying information that is extracted in accordance with the information relating to the display of the content. Ho et al. (US 11099729) teaches systems and methods for displaying content on a user device. For example, a method of displaying content on a user device may include: receiving a first set of content data; arranging and displaying the first set of content in a first sequence of consecutive segments; detecting user input indicative of a scroll pattern of the user through the first sequence of consecutive segments; determining a preferred category based on the detected user input; receiving a second set of content data; arranging the second set of content data into a second sequence of consecutive segments based on the preferred category; and displaying the second set of content data in the arranged second sequence of consecutive segments on the display of the user device.
However, closest prior arts as discussed above, do not teach or suggest the particular combination of steps or elements as recited in the independent claims 1, 4, 8, 9 and 10. For example, the prior arts do not teach of suggest the steps of “a display control means for displaying a part of content on a display and switching the part of content displayed on the display by moving the displayed part either in a first direction or a second direction according to a user operation; a recording means for recording display position information together with a timestamp in log data, the display position information indicating the part of content displayed on the display; a normalization means for performing normalization processing on the log data, in which the time elapsed since the start of viewing, indicated by the log data, is normalized by the total time of displaying the content on the display and viewing the content, and in which the display position information indicated by the log data is normalized by total length information of the content; and a transmission means for transmitting the log data subjected to the normalization processing to an external device.”
While the cited prior arts disclose some of the claimed features as explained above, however, the cited prior arts fail to disclose or suggest each and every limitation together as Claimed. Furthermore, the Examiner cannot determine a reasonable motivation, either from the cited prior art or the existing case law, to combine the known references to render the claimed invention.
The dependent claims further add limitations to the allowable subject matter of the corresponding independent claims; thus are also allowable.
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)).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tam T. Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-5029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/TAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174