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
The present invention application contains 18 claims. Claims 21, 27 and 33 are independent. Claims 21-38 are examined and rejected by the following detail action.
Claim Objections
Claims 22, 28 and 34 are a method, a device and a medium claims, respectively are objected because of the following informalities: claims 22, 28 and 34 recite “…, wherein the mathing level ….; a fresh frequency …performing a refreshing operation ….” that the bold words may be the typo error of the corrected words meaning “matching” and “refresh”, respectively. To proceed the examination, examiner consider this is the typo error and exam the claims with their corrected meaning words. Appropriate corrections are required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims (21, 22, 23, 26), 24, 25, (27, 28, 29, 32), 30, 31, (33, 34, 35, 38), 36 and 37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 of US Patent No. 12008220 B2, respectively.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully anticipated in the referenced patent since the referenced patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter of either claim 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 of US Patent No. 12008220 B2, respectively, as follows:
Since claims indicate in parenthesis of the instant application are under similar scope of the invention, examiner only use the first represented set of claims of each parenthesis to demonstrate the double patenting rejection.
Instant application
Patent 12008220
Motivation
Re-claim 21
A label display method, applied to a feed display interface, comprising: obtaining operation information of a user on a feed stream displayed on the feed display interface; in response the operation information of the user indicating that a matching level between the feed stream and the user being lowered than a preset threshold, displaying a label selection control on the feed display interface, wherein the label selection control corresponds to a plurality of labels; based on a selection of at least one label among the plurality of labels, obtaining a recommended feed corresponding to the at least one label; and displaying the recommended feed on the feed display interface.
Re-claim 26
The method according to claim 25, further comprising: displaying, in response to detecting the selection operation on the at least one label, a first control, wherein the first control is configured to trigger an operation of finishing selection.
Re-claim 23
The method according to claim 21, further comprising: displaying, in response to determining that a first selection operation on a label corresponding to the label selection control is completed, a sub-label corresponding to the label selected by the user; and receiving selection information inputted by the user through a second selection operation on the sub-label.
Re-claim 22
The method according to claim 21, wherein the mathing level is determined based on at least one of: a number of liking operations performed on content of the feed stream; a commenting operation performed on the content of the feed stream; a fresh frequency of the user of performing a refreshing operation on the content of the feed stream.
Re-claim 1
A label display method, applied to a feed display interface, comprising:
displaying, in a process of displaying a feed stream, a label selection control on the feed display interface, wherein the label selection control corresponds to at least one label; receiving selection information inputted by a user through performing a selection operation on the at least one label;
displaying, in response to detecting the selection operation on the at least one label, a first control, wherein the first control is configured to trigger to finish the selection operation;
acquiring recommended information corresponding to the selection information; and displaying the recommended information on the feed display interface; wherein displaying, in the process of displaying the feed stream, the label selection control on the feed display interface, comprises: in response to detecting that an operation of the user on the displayed feed stream meets a label display trigger condition, triggering to display the label selection control on the feed display interface;
wherein the receiving the selection information inputted by the user through performing the selection operation on the at least one label further comprises: displaying, in response to determining that a first selection operation on a label corresponding to the label selection control is completed, a sub-label corresponding to the label selected by the user; and receiving selection information inputted by the user through a second selection operation on the sub-label,
wherein that the operation of the user on the displayed feed stream meets the label display trigger condition comprises at least one of the following: a number of liking operations performed on content of the feed stream by the user exceeds a first predefined threshold; a commenting operation is performed on the content of the feed stream by the user; and a refresh frequency of performing a refreshing operation on the content of the feed stream exceeds a second predefined threshold.
None because they are anticipated.
Re-claim 24
The method according to claim 21, further comprising: displaying, in response to detecting that an operation of the user on the recommended feed meets a sub-label display trigger condition, a sub-label selection control on the feed display interface, wherein the sub-label selection control corresponds to at least one sub-label.
Re-claim 2
The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: displaying, in response to detecting that an operation of the user on the recommended information meets a sub-label display trigger condition, a sub-label selection control on the feed display interface, wherein the sub-label selection control corresponds to at least one sub-label.
Re-claim 25
The method according to claim 21, further comprising: adjusting, in response to detecting the selection operation on the at least one label, a display style of a selected label.
Re-claim 3
The method according to claim 1, wherein, before the receiving the selection information inputted by the user through performing the selection operation on the at least one label, the method further comprises: adjusting, in response to detecting the selection operation on the at least one label, a display style of a selected label.
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 21-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claims 21, 27, and 33 are directed to a method, a device and a storage medium that collect the user operation interactions on a displayed content, comparing the user interaction data to a preset threshold and displaying the recommendation menu options to user. The invention simply receives user input and displays the menu options to user accordingly, such concepts have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as collecting information (i.e., obtaining operation information of a user), analyzing it (i.e., …indicating that a matching level … being lowered than a preset threshold), and displaying certain results of the collection (i.e., displaying a label selection control on the feed display interface) and analysis in Electric Power Group LLC v Alstom S.A. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of the graphical user interfaces and displaying the recommended feed based on user selection are routine, conventional activity in the GUI art. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-26, 28-32, and 34-38 depend on independent claims 21, 27 and 33, respectively and are similarly rejected.
Examiner Notes
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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 21-25, 27-31, 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May et al. (“May”, US PG-Pub. 2013/0047123 A1) in view of Dubey et al. (“Dubey”, US PG-Pub. 2014/0331169 A1).
Re-claim 21,
May teaches a label display method, applied to a feed display interface, comprising:
displaying a label selection control on the feed display interface, wherein the label selection control corresponds to a plurality of labels (Figs. 1, 10, 22B, [0041, 0042]. May describes the Ring guide (shown in Figs 1, 10 and 22B), displaying links to assets, thus, links to feeds or streaming video. The Asset actual format within a Ring guide can be presented as text, graphic, thumbnails, icons, motion video that indicates as labels);
based on a selection of at least one label among the plurality of labels, obtaining a recommended feed corresponding to the at least one label (Figs. 1, 8, 10-13, 15, 22B, [0043, 0094-100, 0108, 0110, 0124-128]. May describes the concept of selecting an Asset or Link Cell by user to play the corresponding Asset feed (i.e. the Tennis channel feed is played in the center window 106 after the user selects cell 11). Similarly, May teaches accessing recommended information from a network (i.e. Personalization/Recommendation Server 218) when user select the “Recommended” label of Link Cell 3); and
displaying the recommended feed on the feed display interface (Figs. 10-13, 15, 22B, [0076, 0078, 0096, 0120, 0124-125, 0176]. May describes displaying recommended information on the feed interface or Ring guide).
May fails to teach:
obtaining operation information of a user on a feed stream displayed on the feed display interface;
in response the operation information of the user indicating that a matching level between the feed stream and the user being lowered than a preset threshold, displaying a second content on the feed display interface.
However, Dubey teaches:
obtaining operation information of a user on a feed stream displayed on the feed display interface (Fig. 4, [0032, 0048]. Dubey describes obtaining user interaction data with the first content displayed on the feed display shown in block 404. The user interaction data including scrolling pattern, rate of user interactions, reaction, level of engagement, an intent, etc.);
in response the operation information of the user indicating that a matching level between the feed stream and the user being lowered than a preset threshold, displaying a second content on the feed display interface (Fig. 4, [0049, 0050, 0059, 0062]. Dubey describes the process of analyzing the user interaction data comparing to a preset threshold (i.e. duration of user views the content based on the user scrolling pattern compared to a threshold duration) to determine a level of engagement of the user with the displayed first content. If it is determined that the user is becoming disengaged, the system will provide a more engagement content or selection (i.e. the second content includes one or more web objects, articles, recommendations, other interfaces, etc. that may be selected (See paragraph [0050]) to user shown in blocks 406 and 408).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the label selection control Ring guide teachings of May with the recommended content selection based on the user interaction activities teaching of Dubey to provide more interesting or engagement content to user or viewer.
Re-claim 22,
May-Dubey teaches the method in claim 21, but May fails to teach wherein the matching level is determined based on at least one of: a number of liking operations performed on content of the feed stream; a commenting operation performed on the content of the feed stream; a fresh frequency of the user of performing a refreshing operation on the content of the feed stream.
However, Dubey teaches:
wherein the matching level is determined based on at least one of:
a number of liking operations performed on content of the feed stream;
a commenting operation performed on the content of the feed stream;
a refresh frequency of the user of performing a refreshing operation on the content of the feed stream ([0032]. Dubey describes the rate of one or more user interactions on the content (i.e. scrolling pattern) that indicates the refresh frequency operation on the content).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the label selection control Ring guide teachings of May with the recommended content selection based on the user interaction activities teaching of Dubey to provide more interesting or engagement content to user or viewer.
Re-claim 23,
In addition to what May-Dubey teaches the method in claim 21, May also teaches the method, further comprising: displaying, in response to determining that a first selection operation on a label corresponding to the label selection control is completed, a sub-label corresponding to the label selected by the user; and receiving selection information inputted by the user through a second selection operation on the sub-label (Figs. 10, 16, [0043, 0049-0054, 0110]. May describes when user select Cell 11 to play the Tennis feed in the center content window 106, a sub-Ring, Cell SR-15 related to tennis shows is displayed for user further selection).
Re-claim 24,
In addition to what May-Dubey teaches the method in claim 21, May also teaches the method, further comprising: displaying, in response to detecting that an operation of the user on the recommended feed meets a sub-label display trigger condition, a sub-label selection control on the feed display interface, wherein the sub-label selection control corresponds to at least one sub-label (Figs. 10, 16, [0043, 0049-0054, 0104]. May describes the user highlights the specific cell of the sub-Ring link/label and then it is selected directly or through spiral navigation).
Re-claim 25,
In addition to what May-Dubey teaches the method in claim 21, May also teaches the method, further comprising: adjusting, in response to detecting the selection operation on the at least one label, a display style of a selected label (Fig. 10, [0111-0113]. May describes (See cell 11) the label style changes to a center displayed instead of bottom displayed label. In the alternative, May teaches different transition graphics can be displayed upon selection).
Re-claim 27,
It is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 21; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 28,
in addition to what May-Dubey teaches in claim 27, claim 28 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 22; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 29,
in addition to what May-Dubey teaches in claim 27, claim 29 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 23; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 30,
in addition to what May-Dubey teaches in claim 27, claim 30 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 24; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 31,
in addition to what May-Dubey teaches in claim 27, claim 31 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 25; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 33,
It is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 21; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 34,
in addition to what May-Dubey teaches in claim 33, claim 34 is a medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 22; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 35,
in addition to what May-Dubey teaches in claim 33, claim 35 is a medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 23; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 36,
in addition to what May-Dubey teaches in claim 35, May also teaches the medium, wherein when the computer program is executed by the processor, the processor is caused to: display, in response to detecting that an operation of the user on the recommended feed meets a sub-label display trigger condition, a sub-label selection control on the feed display interface, wherein the sub-label selection control corresponds to at least one sub-label (Figs. 10, 16, [0043, 0049-0054, 0104]. May describes the user highlights the specific cell of the sub-Ring link/label and then it is selected directly or through spiral navigation).
Re-claim 37,
in addition to what May-Dubey teaches in claim 33, claim 37 is a medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 25; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 26, 32 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May in view of Dubey, and further in view of Thorkelsson (US PG-Pub. 2011/0208801 A1).
Re-claim 26,
May-Dubey teaches the method in claim 25, but May fails to teach a method, further comprising: displaying, in response to detecting the selection operation on the at least one label, a first control, wherein the first control is configured to trigger an operation of finishing selection.
However, Thorkelsson teaches:
displaying, in response to detecting the selection operation on the at least one label, a first control, wherein the first control is configured to trigger an operation of finishing selection (Fig. 6C, [0059]. Thorkelsson describes the concept of displaying the “Cancel” button 661 to control the closing operation for application selection pop-up window 655).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the label selection control Ring guide teachings of modified May with the finish control option teaching of Thorkelsson to close the selection control window for de-clustering the user interface.
Re-claim 32,
in addition to what May-Dubey teaches in claim 31, claim 32 is a device claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 26; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 38,
in addition to what May-Dubey teaches in claim 33, claim 38 is a medium claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 26; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure including Ploshykhyn (US PG-Pub. 2019/0042585 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7612. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at 571-272-4034. 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.
/TUAN S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights