DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice as to Grounds of Rejection and Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 10 and 18 of U.S. Patent No.12,014,028. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 11, 20 under examination are anticipated, respectively, by claims 1, 10 and 18 of the reference patent. Every limitation in the application under examination claims is recited in the conflicting reference patent claims. Thus, the claims being examined are merely broader than the claim patented before, and therefore the claims are not patentably distinct (See In re Goodman).
Dependent claims (2, 4, 5, 7-10, 21, 22), (12, 14, 15, 17-19, 23), (24) of the instant application are rejected as anticipated from dependent claims 2-9, 11-17 and as rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15, 17-24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DOMM et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0304863 hereinafter Domm)
With regard to claims 1, 11, 20, Domm teaches a method, an electronic device, a non-transitory computer storage medium, respectively for displaying an application page <fig 6B shows unified media browsing application para 0173>, comprising:
receiving a recommendation solution in response to initiating a first application or in response to receiving a first operation performed by a user on a first page of the first application <suggested media items are provided based upon user selection para 172-175, figs 6A, 6B>;
determining, based on the recommendation solution, presenting contents and presenting styles corresponding to a plurality of function sets <style of function introduction is text, icon <fig 6B items 613-1 thru 613-7>
displaying a second page, wherein the second page is different from the first page, and wherein the displaying the second page comprises <as the items are selected, pages are different with different background figs 6B-6D>:
displaying, in the second page, a function introduction and recommendation content corresponding to a first function set among the plurality of function sets <function sets corresponding to “sports”, “news” can be shown see fig 8G para 0283-0284>, and
displaying, in the second page, a function introduction and recommendation content corresponding to a second function set among the plurality of function sets <function sets corresponding to “TV Shows” and ‘Movies” can be displayed fig 12F>.
a display screen (claim 11) <fig 1 item 112>;
one or more processors (claim 11) <fig 1 item 120>;
a memory (claim 11) <fig 1 item 102>; and
one or more computer programs (claim 11) <para 0044>;
With regard to claims 2, 12, these claims depend upon claims 1, 11, respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Domm teaches wherein the presenting styles comprise
With regard to claims 4, 14, these claims depend upon claims 1, 11, respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Domm teaches wherein the presenting contents are related to historical browsing content of the user in the first application <recommendation is based upon past viewing history para 0185>.
.
With regard to claims 5, 15, these claims depend upon claims 1, 11, respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Domm teaches the method further comprising: displaying, in response to a second operation performed by the user on one of the plurality of function sets in the second page, a page corresponding to the one of the plurality of function sets <function sets corresponding to “sports”, “news” can be shown see fig 8G para 0283-0284, see also “TV Shows” and ‘Movies” can be displayed fig 12F>.
.
With regard to claims 7, 17, these claims depend upon claims 1, 11, respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Domm teaches wherein the second page covers a partial area of the first page <fig 18R shows second page covering partial area of the first page para 0492>.
With regard to column 8, this claim depends upon claim 7, which is rejected above. In addition, Domm teaches the method further comprising:
playing multimedia information on the first page <media can be played para 0172>; and
continuing to play the multimedia information on the first page while displaying the second page <fig 16Y shows displaying a second page listing of “next” content items while the movie B is being played para 0451>.
With regard to claims 9, 18, these claims depend upon claims 1, 11, respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Domm teaches wherein the second page covers an entire area of the first page <fig 6F shows second page fully covering the first page see fig 6E>.
With regard to claims 10, 19, these claims depend upon claims 1, 11, respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Domm teaches further comprising: displaying the first page, in response to receiving a third operation performed by the user while displaying the second page <based upon a user action, previous user interface is displayed para 0321>.
With regard to claims 21, 23, 24, these claims depend upon claims 1, 11 and 20, respectively which are rejected above. In addition, Domm teaches the method further comprising:
displaying the plurality of function sets in a plurality of areas of the second page, wherein each of the plurality of function sets corresponds to one of the plurality of areas <function sets corresponding to “sports”, “news” can be shown in areas associated with “sports”, “news” - see fig 8G para 0283-0284>.
With regard to claim 22, this claim depends upon claim 8, which is rejected above. In addition, Domm teaches wherein the continuing to play the multimedia information on the first page while displaying the second page comprises:
playing the multimedia information with no sound in response to determining that one of the plurality of function sets in the second page plays audio <audio can be muted para 0548-0549 see fig 20C item 2014-1>; and
playing the multimedia information with sound in response to determining that the plurality of function sets in the second page display images without sound <fig 20B item 2008 shows an image and corresponding media can be played with sound see fig 20C para 0548-0549>.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIL K BHARGAVA whose telephone number is (571)270-3278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 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, Adam Queler can be reached at 571-272-4140. 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.
/ANIL K BHARGAVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights